to JayKeeley
- Thread starter MFJ
- Start date
Dark One
The Tainted Dogma
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Evil?
omghaxlol!1
Sing into a mic attached to your computer and bang on the table and some pots and pans.
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
lol. damn you darkie! 
haha, If it was all growls and yells then I would use my comp, but I wanna actually sing. and hit lots of high notes
haha, If it was all growls and yells then I would use my comp, but I wanna actually sing. and hit lots of high notes
Evil?
omghaxlol!1
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Evil?
omghaxlol!1
It would have been much funnier had you actually called me darkie and had not been referring to Dark One.
Dark One
The Tainted Dogma
Reign in Acai
Of Elephant and Man
Do what this kid with down syndrome did outside of the venue of Agalloch's release show. Just sing in to a wireless mic taped to a broom handle, while strumming a 3 string acoustic.
Evil?
omghaxlol!1
Krigloch the Furious
Pants full of poo
Claws of Perdition
Wipes sitting down
you failed to mention you dont have down syndrome... or do you? MYSTERY POST!
Reign in Acai
Of Elephant and Man
skyrefuge
Member
Success! Ah, I yearn for the old days where you loved me because you thought I was somebody else.
Yeah, and I'm not a bank loan officer! So please interpret my comments at the same shit-shooting level as your own. Despite the molecular deconstruction, I'm just thinking aloud too; it's not like I'm some kind of Arbiter of Truth. My views may be complete nonsense, and if you think they are, please, discard them as such!
Thanks, that's good to know, as I was a bit concerned about that. I don't *think* I'm trying to justify anything, but I won't rule out the possibility. At the least, apparently I have to try harder to mask it.
Don't take Neil so seriously guys - he's just one of those eccentric geniuses.
WTF?!?!? They must take me VERY seriously. Or DIE.
Cool, understood. That view certainly matches the present reality pretty well, and maybe it will always be like that in the future too. I should remember that I'm a total freak, and thus it's probably not useful to extrapolate my behavior onto others. Anyway, while I might be the only one, at least now you know there's one data point that doesn't fit your pattern.
Neil
JayKeeley
Be still, O wand'rer!
Synopsis:
If I were a songwriter, I would think it vital to have the artwork/packaging correlate to the music I've written. It's all a part of the same musical experience for the listener, particularly with throwing yourself into the lyrical aspect of what's being conveyed. This is the life of an audiophile, to better understand the works of any visionary.
Not being exposed to the accompanying text and imagery implies a lesser understanding of the overall message. It's the equivalent of staring at a piece of art hanging on the wall, and only focusing on the frame which surrounds it.
A great example is Skyclad, or indeed almost anything written by Martin Walkyier. Reading the lyrics to his music is mandatory, simply because he plays on the use of the English language which cannot be demonstrated unless read like the poetry it is.
While someone who only owns a copy or ripped (off) download might hear the words "thinking aloud", the written lyrics actually expose the subtle truth of what's really being said, in this case, "thinking allowed". And there are hundreds of other examples here in the world of Walkyier.
So of course, one could argue that music be digitally ripped, lyrics be photocopied, or artwork be scanned, creating either a pile of paperwork or forcing the listener to sit at a computer and attempt to stitch or staple the "bits and pieces" together, at which point it's clear that the listening experience is only of passing interest, with no interest whatsoever to search out the original album itself and respect the blood, sweat, and tears that goes into making what it is you're listening to.
In contrast, if the band doesn't pay any interest in their album artwork, and likewise do not include lyrics in with the final package, to me it lessens the listening experience somewhat. The artwork itself is so vital, it should be the gateway entrance to what lies deeper within. Imagine it's 1970, you're in a record store and you come across the Black Sabbath debut, with the witch staring at you. Surely that was just the beginning of all things to follow.
There's no question, I MUST own the album itself. It's like owning, or at least, sharing in a piece of music history.
If I were a songwriter, I would think it vital to have the artwork/packaging correlate to the music I've written. It's all a part of the same musical experience for the listener, particularly with throwing yourself into the lyrical aspect of what's being conveyed. This is the life of an audiophile, to better understand the works of any visionary.
Not being exposed to the accompanying text and imagery implies a lesser understanding of the overall message. It's the equivalent of staring at a piece of art hanging on the wall, and only focusing on the frame which surrounds it.
A great example is Skyclad, or indeed almost anything written by Martin Walkyier. Reading the lyrics to his music is mandatory, simply because he plays on the use of the English language which cannot be demonstrated unless read like the poetry it is.
While someone who only owns a copy or ripped (off) download might hear the words "thinking aloud", the written lyrics actually expose the subtle truth of what's really being said, in this case, "thinking allowed". And there are hundreds of other examples here in the world of Walkyier.
So of course, one could argue that music be digitally ripped, lyrics be photocopied, or artwork be scanned, creating either a pile of paperwork or forcing the listener to sit at a computer and attempt to stitch or staple the "bits and pieces" together, at which point it's clear that the listening experience is only of passing interest, with no interest whatsoever to search out the original album itself and respect the blood, sweat, and tears that goes into making what it is you're listening to.
In contrast, if the band doesn't pay any interest in their album artwork, and likewise do not include lyrics in with the final package, to me it lessens the listening experience somewhat. The artwork itself is so vital, it should be the gateway entrance to what lies deeper within. Imagine it's 1970, you're in a record store and you come across the Black Sabbath debut, with the witch staring at you. Surely that was just the beginning of all things to follow.
There's no question, I MUST own the album itself. It's like owning, or at least, sharing in a piece of music history.
skyrefuge
Member
Ok, a lot of this is a discussion of the importance of lyrics in general, which is probably a whole other topic. I'll just say that there is a lot of respected music (symphonies, jazz, etc.) which has no lyrics at all. Then of the subset of lyrical music, only a tiny fraction of that is created by "visionaries" who are actually attempting to communicate a cohesive message. Most of the time it's just some crap that the singer throws together to give himself something to do while his band plays all the riffs that they wrote. Slap some artwork on the cover that communicates the genre of your music (i.e. it looks just like everything else), and you're good to go. The fact that music with bad and pointless lyrics sells like hotcakes proves that most people don't really care about them. Now, of course your label would cater towards artists (and fans) who care about lyrics; I'm just saying that those are relatively small groups, both on the artist and fan side.
I would change your painting analogy a bit, and say that listening to music without text and imagery is like looking at a painting without hearing the music the artist was listening to while painting it. Or like watching a movie without reading the script. Hearing the music or reading the script would definitely add something to the experience, but most paintings and movies also have no problem standing on their own, just as music can stand on its own without packaging.
Now, the above argument ("you don't *need* lyrics/imagery to appreciate music") is actually pointless, because there's nothing about electronically-delivered music that prevents you from seeing those things. It's very easy to view artwork and lyrics on a computer, in the same electronic format as the music itself. So there's no need to copy/print-out and all that. It's unfortunate that more electronically-delivered music doesn't come with lyrics embedded, but a lot of it has embedded artwork, and the lyrics situation is improving (some stuff on iTunes comes with full digital booklets). You could say that you still miss out on the feel of the paper in your hands, but you should ask all the dying newspaper companies about how attached people truly are to physical manifestations.
And I can even imagine the situation reversed: if an artist *really* wanted to present his album in a complete way, he could create an interactive web-based presentation which has the potential to be far more complete and enveloping than even the most elaborate packaging. Movie websites already do this, and even some albums have these sorts of things embedded as CD-ROM extras. In that way, the revered physical packaging would take a back seat to the electronic version.
Finally, none of this would make any sense to me either if my computer and music were still separate things. I'd laugh at anyone who told me to go read lyrics online if I had to move to another room or dial-in at 56k. So to help visualize the merging of "computer" and "stereo", here is how you'll find me 90% of the time when I'm in my house.
I don't have to get up and go to a "computer room" to check the artwork and stuff, I can do it all while sitting on the couch and listening, exactly like I would if I was still looking at a physical booklet. The only difference is that when I switch to a new album, I don't have to haul my lazy ass off the couch to pull the new booklet off my CD rack! Again, I know I'm ahead of the curve here, so that's why most people *do* still laugh at the idea of reading lyrics online, but everything is headed in this 'convergence' direction, so it's going to seem less and less silly as time goes on.
Oh, and thanks for the thought and effort you put into your post...if other people besides me make lengthy posts like that, it makes me feel like a bit less of a wacko!
Neil
I would change your painting analogy a bit, and say that listening to music without text and imagery is like looking at a painting without hearing the music the artist was listening to while painting it. Or like watching a movie without reading the script. Hearing the music or reading the script would definitely add something to the experience, but most paintings and movies also have no problem standing on their own, just as music can stand on its own without packaging.
Now, the above argument ("you don't *need* lyrics/imagery to appreciate music") is actually pointless, because there's nothing about electronically-delivered music that prevents you from seeing those things. It's very easy to view artwork and lyrics on a computer, in the same electronic format as the music itself. So there's no need to copy/print-out and all that. It's unfortunate that more electronically-delivered music doesn't come with lyrics embedded, but a lot of it has embedded artwork, and the lyrics situation is improving (some stuff on iTunes comes with full digital booklets). You could say that you still miss out on the feel of the paper in your hands, but you should ask all the dying newspaper companies about how attached people truly are to physical manifestations.
And I can even imagine the situation reversed: if an artist *really* wanted to present his album in a complete way, he could create an interactive web-based presentation which has the potential to be far more complete and enveloping than even the most elaborate packaging. Movie websites already do this, and even some albums have these sorts of things embedded as CD-ROM extras. In that way, the revered physical packaging would take a back seat to the electronic version.
Finally, none of this would make any sense to me either if my computer and music were still separate things. I'd laugh at anyone who told me to go read lyrics online if I had to move to another room or dial-in at 56k. So to help visualize the merging of "computer" and "stereo", here is how you'll find me 90% of the time when I'm in my house.
I don't have to get up and go to a "computer room" to check the artwork and stuff, I can do it all while sitting on the couch and listening, exactly like I would if I was still looking at a physical booklet. The only difference is that when I switch to a new album, I don't have to haul my lazy ass off the couch to pull the new booklet off my CD rack! Again, I know I'm ahead of the curve here, so that's why most people *do* still laugh at the idea of reading lyrics online, but everything is headed in this 'convergence' direction, so it's going to seem less and less silly as time goes on.
Oh, and thanks for the thought and effort you put into your post...if other people besides me make lengthy posts like that, it makes me feel like a bit less of a wacko!
Neil
Demilich
Remember
Krilons Resa
Jerry's married?!
Ok, a lot of this is a discussion of the importance of lyrics in general, which is probably a whole other topic. I'll just say that there is a lot of respected music (symphonies, jazz, etc.) which has no lyrics at all. Then of the subset of lyrical music, only a tiny fraction of that is created by "visionaries" who are actually attempting to communicate a cohesive message. Most of the time it's just some crap that the singer throws together to give himself something to do while his band plays all the riffs that they wrote. Slap some artwork on the cover that communicates the genre of your music (i.e. it looks just like everything else), and you're good to go. The fact that music with bad and pointless lyrics sells like hotcakes proves that most people don't really care about them. Now, of course your label would cater towards artists (and fans) who care about lyrics; I'm just saying that those are relatively small groups, both on the artist and fan side.
I would change your painting analogy a bit, and say that listening to music without text and imagery is like looking at a painting without hearing the music the artist was listening to while painting it. Or like watching a movie without reading the script. Hearing the music or reading the script would definitely add something to the experience, but most paintings and movies also have no problem standing on their own, just as music can stand on its own without packaging.
Now, the above argument ("you don't *need* lyrics/imagery to appreciate music") is actually pointless, because there's nothing about electronically-delivered music that prevents you from seeing those things. It's very easy to view artwork and lyrics on a computer, in the same electronic format as the music itself. So there's no need to copy/print-out and all that. It's unfortunate that more electronically-delivered music doesn't come with lyrics embedded, but a lot of it has embedded artwork, and the lyrics situation is improving (some stuff on iTunes comes with full digital booklets). You could say that you still miss out on the feel of the paper in your hands, but you should ask all the dying newspaper companies about how attached people truly are to physical manifestations.
And I can even imagine the situation reversed: if an artist *really* wanted to present his album in a complete way, he could create an interactive web-based presentation which has the potential to be far more complete and enveloping than even the most elaborate packaging. Movie websites already do this, and even some albums have these sorts of things embedded as CD-ROM extras. In that way, the revered physical packaging would take a back seat to the electronic version.
Finally, none of this would make any sense to me either if my computer and music were still separate things. I'd laugh at anyone who told me to go read lyrics online if I had to move to another room or dial-in at 56k. So to help visualize the merging of "computer" and "stereo", here is how you'll find me 90% of the time when I'm in my house.
I don't have to get up and go to a "computer room" to check the artwork and stuff, I can do it all while sitting on the couch and listening, exactly like I would if I was still looking at a physical booklet. The only difference is that when I switch to a new album, I don't have to haul my lazy ass off the couch to pull the new booklet off my CD rack! Again, I know I'm ahead of the curve here, so that's why most people *do* still laugh at the idea of reading lyrics online, but everything is headed in this 'convergence' direction, so it's going to seem less and less silly as time goes on.
Oh, and thanks for the thought and effort you put into your post...if other people besides me make lengthy posts like that, it makes me feel like a bit less of a wacko!
Neil
To each their own, but that seems extremely sterile to me.
JayKeeley
Be still, O wand'rer!
@skyrefuge: I see what you're saying, and I can recognize that you view things rather differently, but I imagine it just boils down to a rather simple difference in opinion.
There is a scene in Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon and Robin Williams are sitting on a park bench. Williams succumbs to the notion that Damon knows it all: the boy has read all the facts and he's a walking encyclopedia with a major social anxiety disorder. This he cannot deny. However, Williams challenges him to the fact that while Damon can describe in detail the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, he in fact has never been to the chapel and therefore cannot describe the ambiance, the glowing aura, the visuals, the sounds, and even the aroma of that historical structure.
So of course I've thrown another analogy out there, and it might seem rather far fetched, but I'm trying to convey the entire chain of events surrounding the 'acquisition' of our music. Nevertheless, we're at a pinnacle where modern convenience has merged together with the romanticism of old:
We can gather information from websites and sample before we buy. We no longer have to wait for a domestic release before buying. We don't have to get on a bus to go to a store, instead we go on-line and buy. Either way, all roads lead to this notion of buying an actual artifact that will probably outlast us.
We are collectors.
Actually, I would disagree with that entirely. My analogy still stands IMO. If anything, experiencing the music without the artwork, packaging, and lyrics is the equivalent of watching a movie with the volume on mute.
There is a scene in Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon and Robin Williams are sitting on a park bench. Williams succumbs to the notion that Damon knows it all: the boy has read all the facts and he's a walking encyclopedia with a major social anxiety disorder. This he cannot deny. However, Williams challenges him to the fact that while Damon can describe in detail the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, he in fact has never been to the chapel and therefore cannot describe the ambiance, the glowing aura, the visuals, the sounds, and even the aroma of that historical structure.
So of course I've thrown another analogy out there, and it might seem rather far fetched, but I'm trying to convey the entire chain of events surrounding the 'acquisition' of our music. Nevertheless, we're at a pinnacle where modern convenience has merged together with the romanticism of old:
We can gather information from websites and sample before we buy. We no longer have to wait for a domestic release before buying. We don't have to get on a bus to go to a store, instead we go on-line and buy. Either way, all roads lead to this notion of buying an actual artifact that will probably outlast us.
We are collectors.
Actually, I would disagree with that entirely. My analogy still stands IMO. If anything, experiencing the music without the artwork, packaging, and lyrics is the equivalent of watching a movie with the volume on mute.
