Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - How to Create a Pop Star
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedHow to Create a Pop Star
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 91011
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2012 at 19:54
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
I'm not saying that a piece of entertainment is limited by the definition; as I said before, something can be entertaining - a pleasant amusement and diversion of the mind - while still posessing qualities beyond that, which are often the artisitic qualities that I discussed earlier.  I'm saying that the "entertainment" aspect of any piece of music involves only what entertainment itself is.  Catharsis, the communication of emotion, etc. are not excluded by the definition of entertainment, but they are not part of entertainment, either.
Entertainment is the release and/or communication of emotion - how else can you describe it if not through feelings - how it makes you feel emotionally - love/hate, happy/sad. Earlier you said entertainment was fleeting - for the moment, while "art" will change you - that is the emotional release is longer lasting, permanent even. Catharsis has no time limit - it can be fleeting or it can be long-lasting - it is simply the release of emotion. Therefore any piece of music can trigger that, whether it is what you call "music as mere entertainment" or "music as art" - I do not believe there is any distinction between the two - it is possible to be completely unmoved by a peice of classical music yet reduced to tears by a simple pop song.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
As for the intent distinctions thing; don't worry, we just misunderstood each other.  I can give more examples; Coldplay, One Republic, Journey; in the end, neither of us can really know every purpose these musicans have for making music, so it's impossible, in the end, for me to make these distinctions based upon intent.  I do believe that the intent of a musician is going to effect his work, but not for a moment do I think that a piece of music becomes something less if the intent was "lesser."
You are right we are misunderstanding each other and I cannot find the words to express it in completely unambiguous terms. I am saying that it does not matter whether the artist's intent was to create entertainment or art because the results can be either or neither depending on who the listener is. For you Bieber can never be "art" because the intent was to produce "entertainment" - Bach is "art" because his intent was to produce "art" and you don't know what Chris Martin's intent was but Coldplay can be "art" because it is better than Bieber, therefore it is more than just "entertainment". Or perhaps I still haven't understood you or explained myself.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
If you don't see music as having higher and lower purposes, do you see it as having a real purpose at all?  Or is there only one purpose for it, or is the purpose determined by the intent of the artist or the desires of the listener?  I can't really respond to that unless I know where you're coming from on the issue.
The purpose of music is not carried in the notes - there is no secret language buried in the score though the choice of scale can reflect emotion if used well, so something written in the Ionian mode can be quite happy and something written in Aeolian mode can be quite sad, something written in the Lorcan mode can be a bit scary and something written in the Lydian mode can sound happy but be just a little bit unnerving (listen closely to the Simpson's theme - sounds like a happy little tune but there is something not quite right about it - that's Danny Elfman using the Lydian mode to it's best effect), but it is perfectly possible to write a sad song in the Ionian mode and a happy one in the Lorcan. Whatever the artist desires of the listener is beyond his control, Dvorįk never intended his New World Symphony to sell Hovis bread, Bach never intended The Well-Tempered Clavier to be "art" (this is one "intent" we do know for certain - it was written as a teaching aid). Once the composer has written the piece it is in the caprice of the listener how it is recieved. Whether music has a higher or lower purpose is purely down to how the listener interprets it.


Edited by Dean - June 07 2012 at 19:55
What?
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2012 at 20:10
Originally posted by AtomicCrimsonRush AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:

OP was interesting with the clip and how they can fix bad off tune singing in the studio - it really is talentless manufactured pop these days. When Elvis became a superstar it was because the man could actually sing, the same as The Beatles. If Lady GaGa was really fat and ugly she would not stand a chance, same as Bieber and Beyonce.


Are you certain that you are not perhaps confusing Beyonce and Britney Spears?  It is pretty lofty to claim that Beyonce cannot sing at all, much as I dislike her singing or the music she sings to.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2012 at 20:15
Originally posted by dtguitarfan dtguitarfan wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:


I have no problem with artificial sound manipulations when their purpose is providing things that the player could never provide no matter how good he/she is, but I do not like manipulations when the purpose is to supersede the ability of the performer.

If you get rid of things like that, say goodbye to almost all electronic music. There would be no Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Autechre, Aphex Twin, or daft punk without step sequencers, drum machines, delays, and so on. Could everything be played by a person? Probably, if you had 20 people in the group.
I think people should stop getting so hung up on the fact that people use machines to make music. If we take away the machines for some vague "purity" reasons, the only thing we do is deny ourselves of music that wouldn't exist otherwise.
It's really quite lame.

The problem is when there's a "wizard of oz" artist - a person who can't sing well, doesn't write music, and doesn't play music, but is pretty, so the infustry uses tricks to convince teeny-boppers that this person is talented. And the real problem is when the industry shoves actual talent in the corner in favor of this "wizard of oz" music.


Er, and that would not apply to, say, Tarja Turunen because she's supposedly prog or metal?  Really, I do not see much difference between Nightwish or bad pop.  When she hits the high notes on Stargazer live, her voice wobbles annoyingly so I doubt she is as good a singer as she is frequently made out to be.  She writes songs every now and then but is not a songwriter or musician of great repute, at any rate.  It is pretty simple, make it sound operatic or serious and you can make 'elite' fans believe there is a lot of talent going on.  Make it danceable and hip, and the masses will like it.  I don't know that there's a difference.   
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 14 2012 at 00:10
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
I'm not saying that a piece of entertainment is limited by the definition; as I said before, something can be entertaining - a pleasant amusement and diversion of the mind - while still posessing qualities beyond that, which are often the artisitic qualities that I discussed earlier.  I'm saying that the "entertainment" aspect of any piece of music involves only what entertainment itself is.  Catharsis, the communication of emotion, etc. are not excluded by the definition of entertainment, but they are not part of entertainment, either.
Entertainment is the release and/or communication of emotion - how else can you describe it if not through feelings - how it makes you feel emotionally - love/hate, happy/sad. Earlier you said entertainment was fleeting - for the moment, while "art" will change you - that is the emotional release is longer lasting, permanent even. Catharsis has no time limit - it can be fleeting or it can be long-lasting - it is simply the release of emotion. Therefore any piece of music can trigger that, whether it is what you call "music as mere entertainment" or "music as art" - I do not believe there is any distinction between the two - it is possible to be completely unmoved by a peice of classical music yet reduced to tears by a simple pop song.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
As for the intent distinctions thing; don't worry, we just misunderstood each other.  I can give more examples; Coldplay, One Republic, Journey; in the end, neither of us can really know every purpose these musicans have for making music, so it's impossible, in the end, for me to make these distinctions based upon intent.  I do believe that the intent of a musician is going to effect his work, but not for a moment do I think that a piece of music becomes something less if the intent was "lesser."
You are right we are misunderstanding each other and I cannot find the words to express it in completely unambiguous terms. I am saying that it does not matter whether the artist's intent was to create entertainment or art because the results can be either or neither depending on who the listener is. For you Bieber can never be "art" because the intent was to produce "entertainment" - Bach is "art" because his intent was to produce "art" and you don't know what Chris Martin's intent was but Coldplay can be "art" because it is better than Bieber, therefore it is more than just "entertainment". Or perhaps I still haven't understood you or explained myself.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

 
If you don't see music as having higher and lower purposes, do you see it as having a real purpose at all?  Or is there only one purpose for it, or is the purpose determined by the intent of the artist or the desires of the listener?  I can't really respond to that unless I know where you're coming from on the issue.
The purpose of music is not carried in the notes - there is no secret language buried in the score though the choice of scale can reflect emotion if used well, so something written in the Ionian mode can be quite happy and something written in Aeolian mode can be quite sad, something written in the Lorcan mode can be a bit scary and something written in the Lydian mode can sound happy but be just a little bit unnerving (listen closely to the Simpson's theme - sounds like a happy little tune but there is something not quite right about it - that's Danny Elfman using the Lydian mode to it's best effect), but it is perfectly possible to write a sad song in the Ionian mode and a happy one in the Lorcan. Whatever the artist desires of the listener is beyond his control, Dvorįk never intended his New World Symphony to sell Hovis bread, Bach never intended The Well-Tempered Clavier to be "art" (this is one "intent" we do know for certain - it was written as a teaching aid). Once the composer has written the piece it is in the caprice of the listener how it is recieved. Whether music has a higher or lower purpose is purely down to how the listener interprets it.

Sorry for the late reply here Dean, I've been busy and not able to spend much time on PA lately.

Catharsis isn't merely a temporary release of emotion; if we go back to the original sources and look at the writings of Aristotle, who first defined catharsis, we see that the concept of catharsis implies a purification of emotion; that is, the release of emotion and identification with the emotions of characters or musicians in a story or song teaches us to "align our loves and hates correctly," as Aristotle would put it.  This isn't a temporary effect; it's a lasting one, and the whole idea of catharsis was meant to codify the way in which music affected human character.  

Bieber is not "non-art" because the intent was to produce entertainment; he's mere entertainment because the compositions have almost no artistic value.  That could have been because the songwriters' intent was to mass-produce some light fluff that the masses would latch onto (in his case, I imagine that was probably part of it).  It could also have been just because the songwriters were bad (artistically), regardless of their intent.  It's very possible for someone to intend to create a great work of art, and for his music to have almost no artistic value because he is a terrible composer.  It is also possible for someone to intend merely to create something entertaining, and for the result to be a great work of art because he is a good composer. 

I believe that music has higher and lower purposes because certain effects of the music are more profitable to the listener than others.  It's more profitable for a listener to listen to music that improves his character and teaches him to deal with his emotions than to listen to music that merely distracts him for the moment.  Therefore, I think that catharsis is a higher purpose than mere entertainment (as I defined them).
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 14 2012 at 16:39
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Sorry for the late reply here Dean, I've been busy and not able to spend much time on PA lately.
No worries - I feel we passed the point of repeating ourselves long ago.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Catharsis isn't merely a temporary release of emotion; if we go back to the original sources and look at the writings of Aristotle, who first defined catharsis, we see that the concept of catharsis implies a purification of emotion; that is, the release of emotion and identification with the emotions of characters or musicians in a story or song teaches us to "align our loves and hates correctly," as Aristotle would put it.  This isn't a temporary effect; it's a lasting one, and the whole idea of catharsis was meant to codify the way in which music affected human character.  
If that is the definition of catharsis you are working with here then I don't think it applies to most music, regardless of whether it is high or low art. I question whether a purification of emotions is even possible, especially through something as transitory as music - I suspect that the release experienced is temporary but the memory of that release is longer-lasting, perhaps even permanent in one or two rare (once in a lifetime) events. I doubt that the same peice of music will invoke the same reaction twice - but it can trigger the memory of the original "cathartic" experience. However, even if this were possible there is nothing inherrent in "art music" that would create catharsis that is not present in "entertainment music".
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Bieber is not "non-art" because the intent was to produce entertainment; he's mere entertainment because the compositions have almost no artistic value.  That could have been because the songwriters' intent was to mass-produce some light fluff that the masses would latch onto (in his case, I imagine that was probably part of it).  It could also have been just because the songwriters were bad (artistically), regardless of their intent.  It's very possible for someone to intend to create a great work of art, and for his music to have almost no artistic value because he is a terrible composer.  It is also possible for someone to intend merely to create something entertaining, and for the result to be a great work of art because he is a good composer. 
Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere - you judge art as something that is good and everything that is bad as having no artistic value, therefore is not art. Therefore Bieber's music can never be "art" because it is (in your subjective judgement) both bad and has no artistic value, whereas Coldplay can be both entertainment and "art" because  (in your subjective judgement) it is both good and has artistic value and Bach is art (sans quotes) because (in your subjective judgement) it is both good and has artistic value.
 
I don't hold with that idea - I believe that music is an art-form and creating any music is an art and all music is art. This goes back to my first post in this thread - if creating a pop song was as easy as everyone thinks it is then we'd all be doing it. It is not easy, there is art in the craft of creating a hit pop song just as there is art in the craft of creating so-called "art music". Being bad artistically in the world of pop music means the same as it does in any field.
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

I believe that music has higher and lower purposes because certain effects of the music are more profitable to the listener than others.  It's more profitable for a listener to listen to music that improves his character and teaches him to deal with his emotions than to listen to music that merely distracts him for the moment.  Therefore, I think that catharsis is a higher purpose than mere entertainment (as I defined them).
Good for you. I think you are seeing patterns where there are none. If you beleive that a series of harmonic tones can have a positive affect on a persons character and can teach them to deal with emotions then I will call that what it is - new-age twaddle, mumbo-jumbo and witchcraft. (no offense intended)
What?
Back to Top
Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 14 2012 at 22:34
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Sorry for the late reply here Dean, I've been busy and not able to spend much time on PA lately.
No worries - I feel we passed the point of repeating ourselves long ago.
 
Why are you replying to me, then?
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Catharsis isn't merely a temporary release of emotion; if we go back to the original sources and look at the writings of Aristotle, who first defined catharsis, we see that the concept of catharsis implies a purification of emotion; that is, the release of emotion and identification with the emotions of characters or musicians in a story or song teaches us to "align our loves and hates correctly," as Aristotle would put it.  This isn't a temporary effect; it's a lasting one, and the whole idea of catharsis was meant to codify the way in which music affected human character.  
If that is the definition of catharsis you are working with here then I don't think it applies to most music, regardless of whether it is high or low art. I question whether a purification of emotions is even possible, especially through something as transitory as music - I suspect that the release experienced is temporary but the memory of that release is longer-lasting, perhaps even permanent in one or two rare (once in a lifetime) events. I doubt that the same peice of music will invoke the same reaction twice - but it can trigger the memory of the original "cathartic" experience. However, even if this were possible there is nothing inherrent in "art music" that would create catharsis that is not present in "entertainment music".
 
I don't doubt that a purification of emotions through music is possible, and even common.  I would say that we tend to scoff at the notion of music permanently affecting our emotions becasue we don't notice it happening.  I would agree with you that the release of emotions experienced in catharsis is temporary, but the memory is what makes the permanent effect possible.  You're making my point without realizing it.  True, the memory of the release of emotion is not often permanent (though it can last a long time), but when you listen to music often, and especially when you listen to the same piece often, as we are able to do in the recorded age, the memory can become more and more pronounced with repeated listenings.  Just as logic exercises the mind, music exercises the emotions. 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Bieber is not "non-art" because the intent was to produce entertainment; he's mere entertainment because the compositions have almost no artistic value.  That could have been because the songwriters' intent was to mass-produce some light fluff that the masses would latch onto (in his case, I imagine that was probably part of it).  It could also have been just because the songwriters were bad (artistically), regardless of their intent.  It's very possible for someone to intend to create a great work of art, and for his music to have almost no artistic value because he is a terrible composer.  It is also possible for someone to intend merely to create something entertaining, and for the result to be a great work of art because he is a good composer. 
Ahhh, now we're getting somewhere - you judge art as something that is good and everything that is bad as having no artistic value, therefore is not art. Therefore Bieber's music can never be "art" because it is (in your subjective judgement) both bad and has no artistic value, whereas Coldplay can be both entertainment and "art" because  (in your subjective judgement) it is both good and has artistic value and Bach is art (sans quotes) because (in your subjective judgement) it is both good and has artistic value.
 
 I don't hold with that idea - I believe that music is an art-form and creating any music is an art and all music is art. This goes back to my first post in this thread - if creating a pop song was as easy as everyone thinks it is then we'd all be doing it. It is not easy, there is art in the craft of creating a hit pop song just as there is art in the craft of creating so-called "art music". Being bad artistically in the world of pop music means the same as it does in any field.
 
I've tried to use the phrase "almost no artistic value" instead of "no artistic value." I would agree that all music is technically art, and I apologize if I have not been clear in expressing that. I often am too extreme in my language. The first time I used the adjective "bad" in my statement above, I clarified that I meant, "artistically bad." When I say that something is artistically bad, I mean that it has little artistic value, and vice versa. Same for "artistically good." So a good (artistically) composer will create good (artistically) music.
So, in contrast to your characterization above, I would say that Bieber's music has almost no artistic value, and therefore functions as mere entertainment. Both Coldplay's and Bach's music have a great deal of artistic value, and can thus be called great art, but that does not prevent them from being entertaining, either. As I have said before, I believe in objective musical value, so I would not term this a "subjective judgement," although I realize that, from your perspective, it appears to be so. But I don't consider myself the ultimate arbitor of taste, either. I acknowledge that I could attempt to make an objective judgement about music and be wrong. But when I speak subjectively, I speak about the way in which music affects me personally. When I speak objectively (in my view), I'm trying to acknowledge the value that a piece of music has, not merely for me, but for others as well.
 
I hold pop music to the same artistic standard as every other type of music.  I judge it by it's own artistic merits, just as I would judge prog or classical music or jazz by its own artistic merits. 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

I believe that music has higher and lower purposes because certain effects of the music are more profitable to the listener than others.  It's more profitable for a listener to listen to music that improves his character and teaches him to deal with his emotions than to listen to music that merely distracts him for the moment.  Therefore, I think that catharsis is a higher purpose than mere entertainment (as I defined them).
Good for you. I think you are seeing patterns where there are none. If you beleive that a series of harmonic tones can have a positive affect on a persons character and can teach them to deal with emotions then I will call that what it is - new-age twaddle, mumbo-jumbo and witchcraft. (no offense intended)
 
New-age twaddle?  How about an idea formulated by some of the foundational thinkers of Western Culture, namely Plato and Aristotle?  Give this a try (scroll down to part 5 and on to read the music part):
 
 
No, I don't think you should agree with all of this just because Aristotle said it; I don't.  But dismissing it as "new age twaddle, mumbo-jumbo and witchcraft" does not give due credit to the idea and to its thinkers.
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 12:11
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:


Sorry for the late reply here Dean, I've been busy and not able to spend much time on PA lately.
No worries - I feel we passed the point of repeating ourselves long ago.
Why are you replying to me, then?
I didn't say it wasn't entertaining Wink
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes Ambient Hurricanes wrote:

  
 
New-age twaddle?  How about an idea formulated by some of the foundational thinkers of Western Culture, namely Plato and Aristotle?  Give this a try (scroll down to part 5 and on to read the music part):
 
 
No, I don't think you should agree with all of this just because Aristotle said it; I don't.  But dismissing it as "new age twaddle, mumbo-jumbo and witchcraft" does not give due credit to the idea and to its thinkers.
All new-age mysticism is rooted in some partial, often inaccurate, re-interpretation of an older philosophy - there is little "new" in new-age [the epithet "new" actually refers to the astrological age - we are transiting from the Age of Pisces into the Age of Aquarius due to the astronomical event called the precession of the equinoxes - we are currently at the dawn of a new astrological age, hence new-age... apparently... if you believe in astrology... which I don't].
 
This does not discredit the original "thinkers", but it does say many things about modern interpretations of the ideas postulated some 3000 years ago by civilisations who knew less about the physical and biological world than we do now. If I am disparaging, it is not of Aristotle.
 
For the ancient Greeks there was no distinction between astronomy and astrology for example. Having found the mathematic relationships in harmony they saw no reason not to extrapolate that to the whole universe, not only within cosmology (the Musica Universalis: "There is geometry in the humming of the strings... there is music in the spacing of the spheres"  - Pythagoras) but in the relationship between musical harmony, spiritual harmony, emotional harmony and physical harmony. This idea was developed by Plato (teacher of Aristotle) and other later philosophers - the alignment of heavenly bodies affect events in human world, including emotions, well-being etc., if the celestial spheres that carry these heavenly bodies resonate in harmonic proportions, ergo they also affect the human world, if the "music of the spheres" has an effect then it follows that music alone can have a similar effect. I'm unsure how much Aristotle believed this, he is a turning point in the history of philosophy/science and there is a degree of scepticism and guarded qualification in much that he writes on the subject, for example, of the Musica Universalis he says: "they supposed the elements of number to be the elements of all things, and the whole heaven to be a musical scale and a number" ... note the "they supposed" there - he was the first of his generation to consider experiment as proof, (though not wholly so), and in doing so established the foundations of the scientific method. He is essentially saying that without experimental proof the relationship between music and the celestial spheres is supposition.
 
Where (in the link you provided) Aristotle gives examples of the Mixolydian, Dorian and Phrygian modes, I gave examples of the Ionian, Aeolian, Lydian and Lorcan (so between us we've covered all seven Big smile) - he also qualified himself as I did: "and those who hear them are differently affected by each" ... again that hint of scepticism in his writing - the language of music is not a universal vocabulary. One quote that did amuse me: "others enfeeble the mind, like the relaxed modes"... of course the relaxed modes are the Ionian and Lydian (Ionian being a major scale popular in pop music and the Lydian is a major scale popular in jazz) - it does appear that "happy" music was frowned upon even back then¹. LOL
 
Of course what Aristotle is arguing for in that article was the musical education for young boys, not that music enbiggens us all, (sorry talk of the Lydian mode invokes Simpsons paraphrase, it cannot be helped) and in doing so gives three alternative uses for music (only two of which we have discussed here, though the third has been hinted at, albeit obliquely) and in doing so discards both music as entertainment and music as art as reasons why young boys should be educated in music - they are not to be entertained while learning and they are not educated enough to appreciate it intellectually... and that's where I take issue with this 2,500 year old philosophy.
 
 
 
 
 
/edit: ¹ Plato even called for the Lydian and Ionian modes to be banned because they were so frivolous.


Edited by Dean - June 15 2012 at 12:18
What?
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13634 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 12:21

/edit: ¹ Plato even called for the Lydian and Ionian modes to be banned because they were so frivolous.
[/QUOTE]

Yep. Rumour has it that it will be a compulsory round in this season's X-Factor.
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
TheGazzardian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8685 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 12:33
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:


/edit: ¹ Plato even called for the Lydian and Ionian modes to be banned because they were so frivolous.

Yep. Rumour has it that it will be a compulsory round in this season's X-Factor.
[/QUOTE]

I know this is off topic but...

STEVE! Where did your monkey go? Shocked
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13634 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 12:40
Originally posted by TheGazzardian TheGazzardian wrote:

Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:


/edit: ¹ Plato even called for the Lydian and Ionian modes to be banned because they were so frivolous.

Yep. Rumour has it that it will be a compulsory round in this season's X-Factor.

I know this is off topic but...

STEVE! Where did your monkey go? Shocked
[/QUOTE]

He got the grand order of the boot, stemming from that entertaining debate we had about adding bands on the CZ, where I did a skit about Yes Minister.

I changed it on a whim.

But, fear not monkey fans. He might well make a blistering return one day!
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org

Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 91011

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.227 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.