News about the CD
- Thread starter Neva Kee
- Start date
It definitely differs from venue to venue. The place I saw SX at had AMAZING sound quality. And that was for all four bands.
They have since replaced their old sound guy. And he does a MUCH better job. They've also invested in some better equipment since those days. It does depend greatly on venue though, but it has gotten better. At least for the shows out here in Montreal and in Toronto!
I cant buy into the changes from venue to venue though because as I said the earlier bands sounded great. Yes various rooms offer different challenges but something progressively went wrong at my show and it was clearly volumn oriented starting with the drums. I just hope they sound better next time around though I doubt they wil play there again, the crowd must have only been around 100-150 people, just guessing.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Best SX live sound I've heard: L'Amours(Brooklyn, NY- now closed) 
Worst SX live sound I've heard: BB KING's(Times Square, NYC)
Though the latter was their first show in a very very long time.
But yeah, that is why Rush likes playing the Meadowlands; because although their live sound is pretty good, they liking playing at that venue because they get a very crisp sound.
Worst SX live sound I've heard: BB KING's(Times Square, NYC)
Though the latter was their first show in a very very long time.
But yeah, that is why Rush likes playing the Meadowlands; because although their live sound is pretty good, they liking playing at that venue because they get a very crisp sound.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Okay, but see, this is where what I said comes in.
Venues differ, but the sound shouldn't. At least, not the quality. You can have 10 different reverbs, to use an allegory, and even though there's a room and a hall and a plate, they should all sound GOOD.
Therefore there should be a standard which defines, in the terms I named above, what "GOOD" equals. Will it be the same sound at every venue? No. Will it be good sound at every venue? If the sound engineer does their job, yes.
Regardless of what gear the band is using or if it was windy that day, or if one of the stage left 2x18"s blew out.
SyXified
Member
seriously, as if Mike and the boys have sat down scheming a way to "make money" rather than have fun and work hard creating "new" music.
"Creating "new" music" : Shall we consider this for a moment ?
Lets see, you've been at this music thing for near two decades, written an amazing pile of epic progressive music. Used nearly every possible note and rhythmic combination you can possibly think of, every riff angle and groove that has come to you in the genre of your pursuit. Now lets do another 60 minutes of epicness and not sound "the same" so we get slagged for that.... not sound like we "sold out" so we get slagged for that... not produce anything that could be considered inferior to our most amazing work... cause if we do we'll get slagged for that... where to turn, please show me great self appointed god like critics.
Only one thing left to do boys, a progressive bluegrass LP and let the slag fall where it may
No wonder so many musicians become distressed or eventually could care less with their "fans". I'd like to see one of these know it all critics approach the band members on their "inferior direction" at an after show meet, with head firmly planted in their ASS !
Here's a little math for you. Let's figure out the number of 3 chord progressions possible, without even factoring in rhythm (of which there are, theoretically, an infinite number), time signature, instrumentation, melody and harmony, etc..
Let's be further simplistic and define a chord as 3 unique notes (which discounts chords with more than three notes--there's quite a few of them--and further discounts inversions and octaves). That gives you (12 * 11 * 10) / (3 * 2 * 1) = 12!/(9!*3!) = 220 three note chords. Pull from these any three chords and arrange them in a unique order = 220 * 220 * 220 = 220^3 = 10,648,000.
That's over ten million possibilities before factoring in all the afore mentioned factors which would result in exponential growth. For example, the simple act of allowing inversions ups that number to 2,299,968,000, tossing you well into the billions.
So that argument about exhausting all available ideas does not carry water. If you would prefer a non-math argument, Transatlantic: The Whirlwind. Over 10 years in existence with countless other bands and writing experiences, and just this year they released a completely original MASTERPIECE that is far superior to their previous releases. And they banged it out in a relatively short time period. Absolutely it can be done.
Postulate
Have a nice day! :)
- Jul 17, 2008
- 1,474
- 0
- 36
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Yes, and no. I like where you're coming from with this, but:
Take unique possibility A and B, just two of the billions and trillions possible. They are exactly identical, except for one note. This technically makes them unique, but the listener will find them similar.
Put it this way, every album by every band is unique if it is not a blatant copy of another, note for note. However, all albums in a particular subgenre will have striking similarities that cause them to be attributed to that subgenre. In other words, variation or not, rock is rock. Transatlantic's latest disc is awesome indeed, but it didn't revolutionize music. It's still a prog rock album.
Exactly Ken and further it takes much more than even the slight variations you point too, still ignoring the personal idenity every musicians music takes which further limits the product, that is why everyone thats not a copy cat has a sound all of their own, its their "feel".
I'd like to quote my origional statement and highlight the key words used that were used intentionally to aviod the exact responce I got.
Lets see, you've been at this music thing for near two decades, written an amazing pile of epic progressive music. Used nearly every possible note and rhythmic combination you can possibly think of, every riff angle and groove that has come to you in the genre of your pursuit.
As if it was that hard to get the jest of what I was saying.......
Anyone that writes music via math I do not want to hear, I like feel, something that comes from the soul, not baffling mental bullshit. Music has to flow naturally from out of nowhere, just show itself, its either a keeper or a scratch.
I'd like to quote my origional statement and highlight the key words used that were used intentionally to aviod the exact responce I got.
Lets see, you've been at this music thing for near two decades, written an amazing pile of epic progressive music. Used nearly every possible note and rhythmic combination you can possibly think of, every riff angle and groove that has come to you in the genre of your pursuit.
As if it was that hard to get the jest of what I was saying.......
Anyone that writes music via math I do not want to hear, I like feel, something that comes from the soul, not baffling mental bullshit. Music has to flow naturally from out of nowhere, just show itself, its either a keeper or a scratch.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
While your overall intentions here are right; I would like to point out that Bach was a mathematical genius and he actually incorporated quite complex equations and formulas into his compositions. And at the same time, gave us some of the most emotive and beautiful "keepers" ever put to music.
So not only can it be done, but I would just love to know how he did it.
he did it by way of using what felt and sounded right and tossing the sterile. Classical music is quite redundant unto itself as well. Then there is a pile of notes and rhythmic arrangements from it you cant get close to without sounding like your stealing from the classics.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
I couldn't disagree more. Classical music is utterly boundless. And this is exactly what attracted the early prog rockers to it to influence their sound.
I believe that this is mentioned in the BBC Prog Rock Brittania Documentary. It's on youtube and is quite good.
But I don't think that if you heard a piece from Vivaldi and then one from Schoenberg, that you'd be able to make the same claim and still keep a straight face.
SymphonyXV
Member
This. I had a guitar teacher years ago who said metal and progressive is just "classical music with distortion".
oh really ?
regardless I have always found classical to be predictable, just wait for it, here it comes
Similar threads
