the most technically impressive song?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42569
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 01:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: the most technically impressive song?
Posted By: Zaenos
Subject: the most technically impressive song?
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 13:38
Oh, this is bound to start problems  but I hope people can take this seriously...I want your opinions on what song/demonstration by what artist you believe is the greatest display of technical guitar skill in music. Yes, this is a tall order and it may be akin to choosing which of your children you love more, but I'd like to try. Here are some guidelines: -This is not a popularity contest. We're judging on technical playing skill, not your musical tastes. Sorry. -Be civil about it. I won't restrict chatter about suggestions but flaming and spam are no-no-nos. -Try to avoid long debates too, those will come later. consider this a brainstorming phase. -Remember, we're looking for guitar playing skill here, not songwriting skill -Know what you're talking about... please. And if you happen to have a link to a video of what you're talking about, that'd be wonderful.  Current Nominations:
Incomplete Nominations:
EDIT: Note: Try to give the band name with your song/album names, it makes things a lot easier  |
Replies:
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 13:41
|
"In the Name of God" by Dream Theater or many Dragonforce songs
------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 14:34
|
This is the craziest guitarist I've ever seen. I don't know what you consider technical, but this looks pretty technical to me: Mick Barr & Zach Hill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-plG6mmyI_I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-plG6mmyI_I ------------- 
|
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 14:44
|
I won't chose a particular song, but two albums that I've heard lately that really struck me were the Di Meola, Paco de Lucia, McLaughlin live album and Return to Forever - Romantic Warrior....basically any of the top-tier fusion albums feature an insane amount of technical skill. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 14:48
|
It all depends on which techniques you're looking for;
If you mean precision execution techniques, then Dragonforce are very impressive.
If you mean pure rock and roll techniques, then AC/DC take some beating.
For songwriting, The Beatles all the way.
For metal+jazz improvisation techniques, then you want John Zorn.
Of course, Zappa and many of his musicians had a huge arsenal - the song "Ship Arriving Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch" is packed with amazing techniques, from Zappa and Steve Vai, notably.
Then there's the entire album "The New Tristano" by Lennie Tristano - if you've never heard it, then you've probably never heard modern jazz technique like it: Absolute precision, amazing speed, far-out modes, yet pristine jazz performance.
For me, one of the most technically impressive songs in rock is "On Reflection" by Gentle Giant.
To date I've heard very little in Rock music that approaches it's technical level or complexity in composition - much less in recent years - only in the 1970s was composition at such a high standard in rock (and I'm not talking about personal preferences!). ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 14:54
|
Allan Holdsworth's guest solo on Jack Bruce's Obsession (ex. A Question Of Time album). A relatively short one from Holdsworth, but check out and consider Bruce'/Brown's lyrics and hear how well the solo and the tensions it generates fits the subject.
------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 15:14
Why that one? I'd pick Metropolis Pt. 1 - or The Dance of Eternity.  ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
stonebeard wrote:Posted By: Barla
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 15:15
I find Romantic Warrior to be a deception. I've listened to it more than 20 times, and it seems to me like a forced to sound technical album, with very few feeling, except for the Magician and Duel Of The Jester And The Tyrant, which is awesome and saves the album from being a very non essential. I know many of you may disagree with me, but it's just my opinion. Back on subject, I can't choose an all time most technical guitarist. Dream Theater has a lot of extremely har to play songs (specially The Dance Of Eternity, Metropolis Part 1 and Erotomania), Mahavishnu has very technical stuff on Birds Of Fire (I don't like their debut very much), and, yeah, how can we forget Fire Garden Suite by Steve Vai!  ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Barla/?chartstyle=LastfmMyspace">  
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 15:17
The solo. Just...so.....many......notes.....  ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 15:22
^ http://www.myspace.com/bumblefoot - http://www.myspace.com/bumblefoot Listen to "Guitars Suck" ... let me know what you think about it!
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 15:43
| In the Name of God is technical as hell but many things have surpassed it. Spastic Ink for one.....Behold...The Arctopus for another, Sleep Terror, it goes on. |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 16:12
Sweeeet! Thanks for the link! But I don't think it's that technical - it can't be very clean, for one - it's more about relentlessness... |
Posted By: dwill123
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 16:17
| There are many others who I’d consider to be better guitarist but Steve Howe on “Yours Is No Disgrace” (The Yes Album) to me demonstrated some of the most technical versatility on guitar of any body, on any one song. |
Posted By: sircosick
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 16:22
|
Try Akkerman's solo effort Profile (1972), and get into the first side, filled with a long 19-minutes piece called Fresh Air. Quite insane... ------------- The best you can is good enough... |
Posted By: Moogtron III
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 16:31
|
I never listen to music from that point of view, the technical most challenging song, so that is a challenge in itself. From the somewhat limited range of music that I know
 I think I mention Sound Chaser by Yes, not one of my favourite songs, but with some breakneck soloing by several members, and Squire and White are impressive in keeping up with each other in their very fast moves.I'm also inclined to mention the Tarkus Suite by ELP, which has a lot of virtuosity displayed by Emerson and Palmer in particular, and the harmonies and the metres are also a good showcase of their virtuosity.
|
Posted By: Hatters
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 17:05
|
Surely it is I by Meshuggah. That song is just pure technicality for 20 whole minutes.
-------------  http://www.last.fm/user/SHatters/?chartstyle=basic10"> 
|
Posted By: magnus
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 17:21
|
from wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_works_with_unusual_time_signature_combinations%20 - list of musical works with unusual time signature combinations :
(1999) "The Dance of Eternity" by Dream Theater - incorporates an incredible number of time signature changes (in order, each entry written once): 4/4, 7/8, 3/4, 13/16, 15/16, 17/16, 14/16, 5/4, 6/8, 2/4, 5/8, 11/4, 9/4, 7/16, 6/16, 5/16, 10/16, 9/8, 15/8, 12/16, 16/16 (3+3+3+3+2+2), 3/8 
and it's one of my favourite Dream Theater songs! ------------- The scattered jigsaw of my redemption laid out before my eyes Each piece as amorphous as the other - Each piece in its lack of shape a lie 
|
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 17:48
| What's the use of technique without emotion? |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 17:59
depends... you can get Dream Theater... but you also get King Crimson emotion is nice but not necessary same with technique ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 18:02
|
Technicality is NOT impressive.
BTW, the meter signature changes you list are NOT, in actual fact, meters at all. The definition of meter according to the Harvard Dictionary of Music is "the pattern in which a steady succession of pulses is organized." Since the example you've given is neither steady nor forms any kind of repeated succession it, by definition, is NOT METER. It is music written without meter to be more specific. Since the mallest beat value in the sequence listed is a 16th note, all that can be said for the passage in question is that it proceeds with a 16th note "pulse". It has no meter and therefore no meter changes. Additionally meter signatures with a number of beats larger than 7 or 9 also really don't exist. they can all be broken down into samller repeating beat groupings which would make them much easier to read. The first thing any self-respecting musician does when faced with a piece written in these "false" meters is break down the beat groupings and re-draw the bar lines. 15 or 15/16 doesn't exist in musical reality. So-called complex meters are just another way for the moderately musically educated to "feel superior" about our abilities or knowledge. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 18:03
of course it is, it's the very definition of impressive.. just not the only important thing |
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 19:20
I don't see how something that repeats itself every 13 8th notes (13/8 time) contradicts that definition of meter. Please explain. Also, as far as I know, writing something as 13/8 or something of the like, is just an easier way of saying 3/8,3/8,3/8,4/8, and is used for simplicity. They're both equally complex and mean the exact same thing, so how is one way incorrect?
|
Posted By: Lucent
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 21:22
Oh, you mean those guys who speed up their recordings? As far as technicality goes, I believe The Dance Of Eternity gets a vote in there. YYZ, just for its incredible bass performance. Close To The Edge for the beginning riff. La Villa Strangiato, for what it is. Cirkus, for the fact of its symphonic performance, as well as the guitarwork. |
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: October 13 2007 at 22:14
|
MUST...RESIST....DT FANBOY SPEAK....
-------------   |
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 00:31
LAWL JON PATRUCHEE RAWKS he does have some really insanely technical work though but what I've heard from Behold...the Arctopus is just beyond impossible  despite me not particularly liking them, Psyopus also has some more or less impossible guitarwork as well let's see who else Hella's drumwork borders on ridiculous at times ------------- 
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 00:37
|
Posted By: Asphalt
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 01:11
Wel there you have it. The musically non-educated feel, thus dwarfed, or at least impressed by the ability of those with - at least - moderate music knowledge. For most of us, who don't know about the fine mechanics of making and playing music, the concepts of constantly changing pulses may be impressive. After all, this concept - being impressed/impressive - is a subjective one, and not even Harvard dictionaries can decide what is and what is not impressive to each and everyone of us. Lighten up!
|
Posted By: heyitsthatguy
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 01:53
-------------
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 02:01
|
Any song that uses technique as a tool to elaborate on a more complex tought. "Albion, awake!" would be a good example. Goooooood... On the other hand, Dreamtheater. No thought at all, technique falling mindlessly from their muscles. They are fine robots, though... ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 02:11
I would like not to get Dreamtheater very much, please... Art Bears or This Heat are examples of perfect balance. That said, I prefer the horribly executed "Bananamoon" to any perfectly delivered music performance. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 02:23
...Which makes it look impressive. -------------
|
Posted By: toolis
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 03:11
|
to me it must be: 1.Watchtower - Energetic Disassembly 2.Soul Cages - Steps 3.Psychotic Waltz - A Social Grace ------------- -music is like pornography... sometimes amateurs turn us on, even more... -sometimes you are the pigeon and sometimes you are the statue... |
Posted By: Visitor13
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 03:40
It sure does. I think Cert's reply is the most satisfying one, I mean technique cannot only be about speed or precision. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 03:52
That has got to be the most arrogant and pretentios dribble I ever read in this forum.  Have you even listened to this piece of music? If not please do yourself a favor and do so ... it actually makes a *lot* of sense to note it this way. And about meters like 15/16: Of course they exist. Only yesterday I was listening to such a track: Ivanhoe - Bless My Soul. It's clearly 15/16 and not an alternating sequence of 8/8 and 7/8, since the snare drum is at 2 and 4: 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 4 . . bass x x x x x x snare x x ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: indiscipline200
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 04:21
| I gotta put in a plug for Fracture by Fripp and the boys...... |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 04:33
|
^ good call.. other guitar ones; 'Celebration on the Planet Mars' (Ron Jarzombek) 'Mystical Potatohead Groove Thing' (Satch) 'Sails of Charon' (Uli Roth) 'Sequencer' (Di Meola) 'Attitude Song' (Vai) |
Posted By: SirPsycho388
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 04:59
|
Steve Vai - Freak Show Excess ------------- Strangers passing in the street by chance two separate glances meet and I am you and what I see is me. And do I take you by the hand and lead you through the land and help me understand the best I can |
Posted By: martinprog77
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 05:07
|
every song of liquid tension experiment ------------- Nothing can last there are no second chances. Never give a day away. Always live for today. |
Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 05:15
|
Albums: Atheist - Unquestionable presence Watchtower - Energertic Disassembly Spastic Ink - Ink complete Gorguts - Obscura On a little side note I think it's a travesty that Gorguts weren't added to the archives when you consider that Gorguts are more progressive, avant-garde and technical than a lot of bands in prog-metal or metal bands in prog-related. ------------- 
|
Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 06:36
Excellent point. Staying in the Gong universe, GAZEUSE and ESPRESSO II are wonderful records (I gave them loads of stars) but BANANAMOON and THE FLYING TEAPOT will bring more smiles to your face! |
Posted By: aprusso
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 07:46
|
1) The gates of delirium - Yes
2) Lizard (suite) - King Crimson
3) Generale - PFM
4) La Villa Strangiato - Rush
5) Black Cat - Gentle Giant
|
Posted By: sean
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 10:03
|
I think a lot of stuff by The Dillinger Escape Plan is really technical, as is Mastodon, I haven't seen either of those mentioned yet. As an aside, I've seen DragonForce mentioned a few times. I just have to say that I don't really find them that technically impressive. Yes, they can play fast, but it seems like it's all just 4/4, and I think it's more impressive for bands like Dream Theater, Symphony X, Behold...The Arctopus, and the ones i mentioned above, along with a ton of others, that are able to play at these insane speeds but they also did with some really odd rhythms. That's just my opinion, I've always seen technicality more in the ability to use odd rhythms than the ability to play at high speeds, and I think the ultimate technicality is the combination of those two elements. |
Posted By: proger
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 10:14
good question... not all the technically impressive songs are by prog metal... genesis, GG, king crimson and even camel... did a very impressive technically songs at the time... can u consider don cab". to a technically impressive band? ------------- ...live for tomorrow... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 10:31
Let me add a few more guitar "extravaganzas":
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 11:51
|
Terj Rypdal's Chaser - a guitar tour de force, ranging from Hendrix to Marvin, plus his own specilities. Dave Fiuczinski and Wayne Krantz's separate and startlingly dfferent interpretations of Tomorrow Never Knows which bookend the Beatles' tribute: Come Together Volume 2 (NYC Records) ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: proglil49
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 12:13
|
Is it just the guitar that has to be technically or is it the whole musicianship? For the guitar, I'd go with The Extremist, by Joe Satriani, or some Dream Theater song (like Octavarium), but if we consider every instrument, I say Zappa's The Grand Wazoo. ------------- I want to be an astronaut |
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 12:25
| Maybe not the most technical song, but I think Gordian Knot's "Rivers Dancing" is an excellent song technically. The guitars (or Chapman Stick(s)?) and bass are very well done, and the solo is sick! |
Posted By: puma
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 13:02
|
Personally, I think some of the most technical guitar music can be heard on the live Yessongs version of Yours is No Disgrace. Steve Howe is a Beast on that track. And don't forget Mahavishnu Orchestra, with their crazy modal workouts in 18/8 time But Fracture, guys. Seriously, stop playing around. Fracture. The fact that the song was only ever recorded live, never recorded in a studio makes it even more a testament to how amazing King Crimson really is. |
Posted By: MusicForSpeedin
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 18:41
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx0wp2noAeQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx0wp2noAeQ this is the best example i could find
but Robert Glasper Experiment is the craziest thing I have ever heard. This video has the drummer in it.
|
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 21:49
Tasty, but not the most technical. Guitarist has some mean comps.
On the subject at hand.
Hmmmm.....a chance to be arrogant. Although any attempt at it has already been usurped by the anti-tech guy.
Anyway, I see some stuff listed here that is technical, but not near the most technical. And then some that are real head scratchers. And of course some that have not crossed my ears that I'm eager to hear. And this is limited to ensembles, not just a single player.
The only Dream Theater that realy qualifies is Dance of Eternity and Erotomania. The others that have been mentioned have some technical parts, but also some LaCheese.
My list:
Stravinsky - Rite of Spring
Martyr - Nameless, Faceless, Neverborn. Silent Science....all but 2 songs from "Feeding the Abscess"
Frank Zappa - Enchidna Arf (of you)/Don't You Ever Watch That Thing, anyhthing using the "Sinister Footwear" theme. And of course countless others.
Chick Corea - Short Tales of The Black Forest, The McLaughlin, DiMeola, Delucia version
King Crimson - FraKctured
Mr. Bungle - Ma Meeshka Mow Skwoz, Stub (a dub)
Spastic Ink - ACRONYM, Mosquito Brain Surgery
Spiral Architect - Insect
Return to Forever - The Magician
Theory in Practice - Replica Dawn
Unexpect - How do you pick a song?
Gentle Giant - Cogs in Cogs (Though the slower "So Sincere" from the same album is probably harder to play due to the vocals).
Watchtower - All of "Control and Resistance"
Bela Flek and the Flektones: UFO TOFU musical palindrome ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: October 14 2007 at 22:49
wow... that was incredibly boring!  ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: Zaenos
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 00:43
|
Well, I guess it's time I put my own two cents in. Through all my searching I still see Symphony X on top.My best example is The Guitar Chapter video (the first part of which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuOXqsQo0ko The subsequent parts should be found in links on the page). Also, you may want to check out a piece from their new album, Paradise Lost, called Eve of Seduction: (hear here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc6BdT1J9nY Just bear with YouTube's bad quality and that the idiot spelled it wrong :-P) |
Posted By: russellk
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 02:36
|
I'm a little puzzled by the claim that certain bands are technical but 'play without emotion'. Are we setting up some sort of binary here? You know, like you can't be handsome and intelligent at the same time? is what people really mean that the music doesn't generate any emotion in them? I'm no Dream Theater fanboy, but I can't quite work out how they're 'emotionless'. They've moved me plenty of times. Perhaps not always they way they intended, but I'll put up with a few failures in order to experience their successes. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 02:39
|
well put |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 02:48
Well, no, but that doesn't mean the opposite is true. All those faceless Iron Maiden heavy metal dudes can craft some real mean, and technically impressive, guitar solos, but it takes a Ritchie Blackmore to "take me there." ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 03:01
|
^ Since when are Iron Maiden a particularly technical band?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 03:06
|
Uh, since I heard 'em and went, "Holy crap dude, this is awesome?" I mean, they ain't King Crimson, but heavy metal bands have to be, by default, technically skilled to a certain degree, and I think that the Maiden's brand of high octane riffage is impressive. ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 03:27
|
^ ok, Iron Maiden are impressive ... but IMO not primarily because of their technicality. As a matter of fact Steve Morse runs circles around them.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 04:52
By the way why the hell isn't Rypdal here anyway, yet? I haven't even heard that one, but I have several of his albums:  Rypdal, Terje Waves 1977 Sep. 879 6/1/03Rypdal, Terje Undisonus 1990 880 8/5/03 Rypdal, Terje Skywards 1997 881 6/1/03 Rypdal, Terje Whenever I Seem To Be Far Away 1974 12/5/06 Rypdal, Terje After the Rain 1976 Aug. 678 2/8/01 Rypdal, Terje Descendre 1979 Mar. 981 1/5/04 Rypdal, Terje If Mountains Could Sing 1995 679 1/8/01 Rypdal, Terje Lux Aeterna 2000 Jul. 1189 12/23/05 Rypdal, Terje Vossabrygg 2006 3/24/07 Rypday, Terje Singles Collection, The 1988 Aug. 178 Superb Jazz-Rock/Fusion ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 05:01
| Terje Rypdal is on our addition list, and he will be added by Alucard ASAP. BTW, I'd be grateful if people could ask about such things without implying someone is keeping a given band or artist out of PA on purpose. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 05:04
Steve Morse? Steve Morse runs circles around almost everyone.. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 05:12
|
^Yeah, I've been a long time fan of Steve.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 05:14
I wasn't trying to imply anything, I did a search and it came up blank. Maybe I didn't do it properly. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 05:18
|
Sorry for sounding confrontational, I had a bad night. Anyway, have you looked at the Master List? Rypdal should be there, marked in red.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 05:36
| I don't think I am entitled to judge the technical abilities of all the great musicians you quoted. Do you really think you are ??? I can only tell you my personal preferences. Well, I guess in the end is what you are doing, too. |
Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 05:43
|
Depend. More songs are very technically. In more genres, not only in Prog field. For example also "Black Sabbath" or "N.I.B." are very technical songs.
Rush's songs are very technical... East Of eden songs are technical songs... Also Judas Priest's "Painkiller" is a very Killer song... King Crimson songs are extreme technical...
So... I don't have a single very technical song but too long techinical songs list for this thread!
Ahhh... Because the Jeff Beck's version of "Love Is Blue" isn't extreme technical for 1968 and for today standards? ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ahmadbarqawi
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 06:12
|
hmmm.... "Instrumedley" by DT... ------------- {Flashlights shade shrunken views Of a red demon’s foxtrot in brews Guns & flowers crown morning news Panic-stricken guilt now ensues} |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 07:32
The two Chasers albums (his band's name at the time), take off from The Singles Collection release, but are harder edge, and you'll find freer jazz on several of the tunes played - the tune called Chaser (from the first album) would be one of my all time top 20 jazz rock tunes.
  ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: mrbungle140
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 11:15
|
spiral architect - insect
cant beat it technically! |
Posted By: puma
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 12:33
|
We can't talk about technicality as just playing fast. A technically
impressive song has to have a technically challenging song structure,
based around a strange scale, if any scale, and should be a piece so
abstract that any listener of the song will feel a strange emotion when
listening to it. For me that's Fracture and FraKctured. They're not
songs in 4/4 with fast guitar solos, and they're not even songs in 13/8
with fast guitar solos. They're pieces of music written in varying time
signatures (including 5/4, 7/4, 13/8, and one part that's something
like 4.5/4), including very fast and very syncopated instrumentality,
and not to mention they're both roughly 12 minutes long, so you need
stamina to play that. There aren't many songs like that, period. Technical in composition as well as in execution. |
Posted By: sean
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 18:48
I haven't heard FraKctured, but I have to agree about Fractured. That song is more impressive knowing that it was recorded live,and they just cut out the applause and put it on the album. |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 23:18
Well, perhaps...I don't have too many recent Deep Purple records, so I can't really comment...but the true strength of the Maiden is another Steve (Harris), who is really one of the greatest metallic bassists I've ever heard. I'll be willing to take a hit right here and say he's actually quite as good as Squire.
Well, maybe ALMOST as good, but still really, really, really, really good. Not Jeffrey though. ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: Yorkie X
Date Posted: October 15 2007 at 23:23
|
Just take a listen to the counterpoint on Starcastle's Fountains of Light or their first album ... takes some beating
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 02:42
Do yourself a favor and listen to Purpendicular ... or Rapture of the Deep. You don't have to convince me that Iron Maiden are a good band ... they're easily in my top 10 list of all 80s metal bands. I just don't think that they specialize in technicality. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 02:47
Sometimes even an odd time signature like 15/16 can sound quite natural and not very complex ... I already mentioned that Ivanhoe track. Sometimes the complexity comes from some instruments playing different rhythms/signatures than others simultaneously (polyrhythms) ... Meshuggah are a good example of that. Many of their songs are in standard 4/4 ... but if you're not used to polyrhythms you'll have a hard time figuring that out. BTW: 4.5/4 is probably better noted as 9/8. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 03:12
|
Oh and I forgot about behold ...the arctopus, their new album is killer tech, was released today I think.
-------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 03:18
|
FruMp; make sure to check out Blotted Science with Zelany and Jarzombek.. album Machinations of Dimentia |
Posted By: The Whistler
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 03:37
Thems new Deep Procol albums? I can see myself doing that.
But surely the man ain't Ritchie... ------------- "There seem to be quite a large percentage of young American boys out there tonight. A long way from home, eh? Well so are we... Gotta stick together." -I. Anderson |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 04:47
|
^ Fortunately he knows that and doesn't try to imitate Ritchie.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: sean
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 09:37
Meshuggah is a very good example. In many of their songs, the drummer plays in 4/4 with his hands, but does something completely different with his feet, which makes the song sound odd, but it still has a natural feel to it. |
Posted By: mrcozdude
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 10:04
Yeah with all instruments i think Zappa Wins ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/cozfunkel/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 10:15
I have to agree with this myself. Zappa is a very talented player, his interpretation is so personal that you can even hear his unique mood, his humour, etc. Quite brilliant indeed, a fast guitar player that doesn't do it to impress, but for the emotion and the thought of it. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: jikai55
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 20:01
|
Behold...The Arctopus - Alcoholocaust ------------- 
I like cheese and I like metal! --Mikael Åkerfeldt |
Posted By: puma
Date Posted: October 16 2007 at 21:07
Mathematically, yeah, you're right, but 9/8 is played usually as a collection of grouped triplets (slipjig time), and the section of the song I'm talking about isn't in triplets at all. Which is why I wrote what I wrote. But yeah I'd get yelled at for writing that in my composition class (and Fripp would get yelled at for writing Fracture if he was in my composition class). Meshuggah sounds like an experience, huh. What do you recommend for a first-timer like me? |
Posted By: FruMp
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 00:34
Cheers, I'm suprised I hadn't heard of them earlier. -------------
|
Posted By: Sckxyss
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 01:05
I
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 02:02
Mathematically, yeah, you're right, but 9/8 is played usually as a collection of grouped triplets (slipjig time), and the section of the song I'm talking about isn't in triplets at all. Which is why I wrote what I wrote. But yeah I'd get yelled at for writing that in my composition class (and Fripp would get yelled at for writing Fracture if he was in my composition class). [/QUOTE] Playing 9/8 as 3+3+3/8 is just one option ... especially in prog rock it's often played as 2+2+2+2+1/8. It's essentially one bar of 4/4 with an extra 1/8 note added to confuse people. Similarly, 7/8 can be seen as one bar of 4/4 cut one 1/8 note short to confuse people. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: puma
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 02:57
| I love the math in music. Unfortunately that's where my love for math ends. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 04:36
Playing 9/8 as 3+3+3/8 is just one option ... especially in prog rock it's often played as 2+2+2+2+1/8. It's essentially one bar of 4/4 with an extra 1/8 note added to confuse people. Similarly, 7/8 can be seen as one bar of 4/4 cut one 1/8 note short to confuse people. [/QUOTE] You're right about the notation - 4.5/4 not only looks ugly, you'd find few software packages that'd allow it
 But traditionally, 9/8 is 3 dotted crotchets to the bar, giving a feeling of 3/4 with a triplet swing.
In 20th Century music, of course, anything is possible... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 13:45
|
"Playing 9/8 as 3+3+3/8 is just one option ... especially in prog rock it's often played as 2+2+2+2+1/8. It's essentially one bar of 4/4 with an extra 1/8 note added to confuse people. Similarly, 7/8 can be seen as one bar of 4/4 cut one 1/8 note short to confuse people."
Mike this is purely and simply INCORRECT. Just because the beats add up to nine does not make it 9/8 (or 9/4 or whatever). 9/8 is a triple meter with a triplet subdivision of the beat. It is best described as being "felt" as 3/4 time with triplets rather than straight eight notes. That is the ONLY 9/8 time there is. The technique you are describing here is called "additive meter" and is very different. These meters should be written as an equation: i.e (3+2+4) / 9. This particular example is how the Apocolypse in 9/8 SHOULD BE WRITTEN but its not nearly as catchy sounding. The main source of confusion about additive meters comes from folks who have a small smattering of music knowledge and have misunderstood the concept and then proclaimed their mis-information as musical fact. Anytime you make groupings of beats (mixtures of accented patterns of 2, 3 or 4 beats) in this manner, what you are dealing with is additive meter. 7/8 is NOT 4/4 with one less eight note. It is an additive grouping of (usually) either 4+3 or 3+4 beat groups which are accented so as to be able to "feel" the difference. If the accent pattern changes the meter signature must also change. The remaining "7" meter would be 2+3+2 but it isn't seen very often. 2+2+2+1 cannot exist because the "1" cannot be accented and "felt" as a beat group. "1" cannot be a group. Please be sure you have your music theory straight before you announce things you might not understand as fact. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 14:13
This is purely and simply INCORRECT.
So what you're telling me is how you think it should be written, and not how it actually *is* being written.
Maybe it also comes from the fact that most of the time 9/8 is noted as 9/8.
If I have a 2+2+2+2/8 groove (=4/4) and then the drummer simply combines the last 1/8th note of the bar with the first 1/8 note of the following bar and doesn't change anything else ... how is that not a 2+2+2+1/8 groove?
I'll continue posting anything I want. Sue me! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 14:20
You're right about the notation - 4.5/4 not only looks ugly, you'd find few software packages that'd allow it
But traditionally, 9/8 is 3 dotted crotchets to the bar, giving a feeling of 3/4 with a triplet swing.
In 20th Century music, of course, anything is possible... [/QUOTE]"Traditionally" ... maybe you're right, especially if you're looking specifically at Classical music or traditional Jazz. But not in Prog! Maybe I'll post some examples later ... but I'm pretty sure that (3+3+3)/8 is very, very rare in Prog. You're of course welcome to post some examples to prove the contrary ... ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: puma
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 14:32
"Traditionally" ... maybe you're right, especially if you're looking specifically at Classical music or traditional Jazz. But not in Prog! Maybe I'll post some examples later ... but I'm pretty sure that (3+3+3)/8 is very, very rare in Prog. You're of course welcome to post some examples to prove the contrary ... [/QUOTE] That's assuming, of course, there is something called Prog that can be classified like that. Which there isn't. |
Posted By: Evandro Martini
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 15:59
|
9/8 as (3+3+3)/8 is not rare in prog. It's a very bluesy meter, which is often used by prog bands, usually to rearrange themes already played later in another meter. A stunning example of (3+3+3)/8 is the new version of Mood For a Day that Stev Howe developed with his Steve Howe Trio. But writing 9/8 in other meters is also common, especially in prog rock. About Trademark's statements, I didn't study music that far to deny him, but my particular point of view is that music should be a free thing. You should never say that something can't exist in music. For example, last year I was in a Dream Theater show with a friend who studies flute and has a rather square mind about music. I told him "Notice that now they're playing in 7/8" and he said "This meter doesn't exist". I pity him. ------------- "You’ll never make any money playing music that people can’t sing.” Keith Emerson's father |
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 16:05
|
"So what you're telling me is how you think it should be written, and not how it actually *is* being written."
What I'm saying is that 9 years of formal music study and 9 years more teaching music theory at university trumps your false assumption. "If I have a 2+2+2+2/8 groove (=4/4) and then the drummer simply combines the last 1/8th note of the bar with the first 1/8 note of the following bar and doesn't change anything else ... how is that not a 2+2+2+1/8 groove? " It most certainly is not. The example you give equals 2+2+3/8. All beat groupings are broken down into two's, three's and four's. 1 IS NOT A GROUP! As I said earlier in this thread music in additive meters that are "written" in simple terms; e.g. 9/8, 7/8 etc, are artificial or false meters. They "exist" only as a mathematical concept (or more accurately a mathematical construct) This is basic sophomore level music theory. The first thing any player will do when faced with this sort of piece is figure out the beat groupings and draw in the proper barlines to make it playable. No musician will EVER count to 15 or 17 while playing. Most won't even count to 9 (and since a true 9/8 is in triple time they only count to 3, and it will always be conducted in 3), and some won't even count to seven. They'll re-draw the barlines on the page to correct the composer's error. And yes, composers make lots and lots of errors. Ask any orchestra musician. Just because a composer writes it down doesn't make it real or right. Conductors have to make all kinds of corrections to Beethoven's symphonies in order to be performed. Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony has a long section written in 5/4 and it is a common theory excercise to have students "correct" it. It is actually alternating measures of 3+2 and 2+3. You might want to call it 10/4 just to make it sound more impressive but it's not. Since the accent emphasis changes with each measure the meter sig needs to follow suit. 3+2/4 | 2+3/4 | 3+2/4 | 2+3/4 | etc. Paul Hindemith (German composer BTW) wrote a string quartet (No. 4, I think) where each measure of one movement has a different number of beats. Hindemith was smart enough to know that this doesn't mean that the meter changes every measure. It takes repetition to establish a meter before it can be "changed". Hindemith knew the piece simply had an 8th note pulse. he drew the barlines in to mark out the phrasing for the players, but put no meter signature in the piece at all. The performance instructions are: 8th note = 60 BPM. Simple and extremely playable as a result. No confusion of artificial meters, no changes to watch for; just a simple tempo and clean notation. Typical German ingenuity. I've had 6 years of composition study and it is still not unusual when my pieces are being played for the first time to have players ask "Why the hell did you...?" One of my early pieces was written with a large number of simpllified additive meter sigs (I thought I was being so cool), and the conductor and I had a LOOONG sit down about why that was such a bad idea. The offshoot was that I re-barred the whole piece (giving it even more meter changes as a result) and had a great performance by the Kiev Philharmonic Chamber Orchstra as a result. Additive meters are as simple as dirt and and ten times more logical than your mis-conception. I would have thought that someone with your math background would find the simplifcation of the process appealing. Music is simple, but that doesn't make it easy. The hardest music to play well is often the simplest. Just because someone writes 9/8 on a piece of music paper doesn't make it real. It's a bit like saying that "lksdf[a0s9xhergo8" means bathroom when it only means bathroom to YOU. Put that sign on the bathroom door and people will still ask you where the bathroom is every day because your sign doesn't make sense. Similarly, writing 9/8 when what you want is 3+2+4/8 will have the same effect. The musicians will stop playing and ask you what you want from this passage because they don't understand your sign. As Bill Engvall might say, "Mike, here's your sign." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upXayzBPuzM The fact is that additive meters are THE CORRECT musical reality. Who knows why a composer might choose to ignore this. Maybe to avoid lots of meter changes, maybe, as in Tchaikovsky's case, to save ink. Lots of musical "shorthand" that is still in common use came from the days of pen and Ink composition. Or maybe, like me when I was young, to make the music look really complicated and awesome. Suffice it to say not one of them would believe that 13/8 is a true meter. Anyone with even a basic music education knows it is additive meter made up of groups of 2, 3, & 4 beats that form a consistent repeating pattern. So if what you are trying to do here is make this more complicated than it really is, I have to ask why? Are you so insecure that you need to make the music YOU like more complicated than what others like? Are you so insecure that learning something new (or having a long-held false assumption corrected) is such a terrible threat to you that you refuse to even consider the possibility? I wonder. Those of us from the US are often criticized when we're abroad for holding an "ignorant and proud of it" attitude. I guess this isn't limited to the States. Ah well, ignorance is bliss. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 17:03
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: rileydog22
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 17:27
|
Regardless of whether 7/8, 9/8, 15/16, and the like are legitimate time signatures, I think we can all agree that the 4/4, 7/8, 3/4, 13/16, 15/16, 17/16, 14/16, 5/4, 6/8, 2/4, 5/8, 11/4, 9/4, 7/16, 6/16, 5/16, 10/16, 9/8, 15/8, 12/16, 16/16 (3+3+3+3+2+2), 3/8 pattern that spurred this discussion is not legitimate notation. ------------- |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 17:41
Well, you got to write it down *somehow*. Some people will go for fewer (longer) bars, others might go for more (shorter) bars. When you use longer bars you can use accent marks to indicate the grouping ... when you use shorter bars (for example only groups of 2, 3 or 4) then you can trust that people will implicitly put the emphasis/accent on the "1" of each bar, but technically you'll still have to use accents. I have the official transcription of Metropolis Pt. 1 ... looking at it I cannot think of a better way to write it down. Essentially it's a heterogenous sequence of bars, but of course there are mathematical patterns (7/16, 6/16, 5/16 ... Portnoy is a big fan of the principle of "shrinking/expanding). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 17:43
|
OK, I'm just trying to help clarify things and hopefully this will help. When playing odd meters, no matter what is written on the page you count everything in 2s, 3s, or 4s. You just can't feel a "1" it just doesn't work.
Your Pal John (Masters degree in music comp) aka Easy Money |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: October 17 2007 at 17:47
|
^ how about this: > > 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 b x x x s x x x x > = Accent, b = bass drum, s = snare drum How is that not (3+3+1)/8? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|