"you just don't understand"

Mumblefood said:
i must've missed that part. I still stand that it's completely valid for someone to use "you don't understand" as an argument as to why someone doesn't enjoy something they do. Clearly, if they had the same understanding, they would both like it (or hate it)
Well noone will have the same exact "understanding" as someone else. Everyone is different and tastes in art are very subjustive.
 
J Mann said:
That depends on a variety of things. Most specifically one's definition of an "intellectual exercise". I don't feel like getting into a massive debate about this but to me music, like any other medium, can be used to display ideas of varying ingenuity.
All art, including music, including rock music, can be and are used to display ideas and emotions. What I think he is saying is rock cannot express very intellectual ideas, but I disagree with him. Music is used to address social issues or political ideas all the time. This isn't the most intellectual of genres, and it's main "talent" is pushing buttons and making people think for themselves, which is why fucking shock rock exists and is so popular
 
The Greys said:
The bands music consists of basic single note patterns. The bands music is not complex or technical in the realms of heavy music.

I'm not saying music has to be technical, but saying music is when it's not annoys me.

I think you are not looking at it the right way. Most people consider bands (later Death is a good example) technical for their musicianship (as well as actually what they play, like you have stated) as a band. Later death is quite easy to play on guitar as far as everything but solos goes, but as a whole band is no easy ordeal.

Both Meshuggah and Death (just an example) also have complex drumming, you are only taking in the guitars here.
 
Technicality alone is not a reason to listen to a band. You listen to the MUSIC... a tool for elliciting emotions. The writing means everything and they do something as unemotional as basing it on equations which by definition are not emotional.

Hell, I could come up with the most ungodly hard thing to play in the world but it'll be shit because it sounds like totally random notes... which it will be.
 
I'm not much of a fan of Dream Theater, but I dont think so ender. They certainly attempt to convey some emotion lyrically and vocally and they can keep some steady melody going.

I think Thraxz is more or less referring to stuff like Spastic Ink. Which is well written and played, but doesnt convey a whole lot or make the listener feel anything.
 
Pull The Plug said:
I'm not much of a fan of Dream Theater, but I dont think so ender. They certainly attempt to convey some emotion lyrically and vocally and they can keep some steady melody going.

I think Thraxz is more or less referring to stuff like Spastic Ink.
Never heard Spastic Ink.
Dream Theatre do try, but fail miserably. Emotion gets lost in translation when technicality is a priority, and technicality is a major priority to them
They are very talented musicians, but not good artists.
 
Thraxz said:
Technicality alone is not a reason to listen to a band. You listen to the MUSIC... a tool for elliciting emotions. The writing means everything and they do something as unemotional as basing it on equations which by definition are not emotional.

Hell, I could come up with the most ungodly hard thing to play in the world but it'll be shit because it sounds like totally random notes... which it will be.

Isn't this kind of up to everyone to decide for themselves? Hell, I know I don't need someo ne to tell me why to listen to a band :lol:
 
The Greys said:
The ending riff to new millenium cyanide christ for example is one note for around 1,2 minutes.

most people who dislike meshuggah have only ever heard new millenium cyanide christ, and maybe the single from 'nothing'. most people who dislike anything that's popular have really only ever heard the radio single and just have a problem with the people who like the bands and therefore don't feel they need to actually know what they're talking about to have an opinion.

i find.
 
Demilich said:
Isn't this kind of up to everyone to decide for themselves? Hell, I know I don't need someo ne to tell me why to listen to a band :lol:

You're dumb as a stone and/or are kidding yourself if that's why you listen to music.
 
Destroy Erase Improve is definitely a good album. I tend to agree with the criticism about the single note riffs, though. The songs also sound very samey. As awesome as Future Breed Machine is (one of the best metal songs ever), the album rarely offers anything that song doesn't.
 
Pull The Plug said:
I think you are not looking at it the right way. Most people consider bands (later Death is a good example) technical for their musicianship (as well as actually what they play, like you have stated) as a band. Later death is quite easy to play on guitar as far as everything but solos goes, but as a whole band is no easy ordeal.

Both Meshuggah and Death (just an example) also have complex drumming, you are only taking in the guitars here.

Agree about technical...

ones of the best drummers ever^
 
i have 3 meshuggah albums and i dont think theyre anything that "difficult" to comprehend. i think theyre extremely boring and that should be enough of a reason for me to not like them. i dont need some jerkoff telling me "no, theyre the best metal band thats active today...you just cant see it because you dont understand the music." fuck off.

and i think, for the record, that tool is one of the worst bands of all time, and one of the most over rated. their drummer is good but not GREAT. for the record.
 
Ok, so I'll be another jerk to tell that Im kinda not trying to tell that Meshyggah is a great music and you should like it, coz its cool. No. Only you know what you like and chose your preferences. But all I'm trying to say now that their music is difficult and complex, musiciants there are good and talented. Even if you dont like the sound.
 
The problem is when talent is confused with creativity - and, of course, creativity is impossible to 'prove'. That's why some people see abstract art as crap and some 'get it' (whatever 'it' is).

The most untalented musicians can get by with sheer creativity. Jimmy Page is a perfect example. He's widely regarded as one of the most talented musicians ever. He wasn't as talented as he was creative. Many of his songs are some of the easiest songs to play (Immigrant Song, Dazed and Confused) - yet they were creative enough to have a huge impact.

Tony Iommi is another perfect example - short on talent though he was a creative genius. How could you possibly discuss the merits of Black Sabbath to...say...Beethoven - without discussing Sabbaths influence over modern music? Someone like Beethoven would hear the simplicity of Sabbath and scoff. In the end, you'd have to just say, "You just don't get it."

Though it goes both ways. Creativity should never be confused with talent either.
 
Devy_Metal said:
and i think, for the record, that tool is one of the worst bands of all time, and one of the most over rated. their drummer is good but not GREAT. for the record.

I have a distate for Tool also but you are wrong about the drummer. He's a drummers kind of drummer if you know what I mean, so if you arent one thats probably the reason why you dont think he is great.

What he plays isnt outstanding and crazy like hearing Cryptopsy for the first time or something similiar, but he plays such brilliant stuff. His use of different accents is very well done and his independence is great, he makes some nice extras with the hi-hat pedal too (this is naming a few things he does of course). Very creative and solid drummer.
 
I guess that makes up for the disproportionate amount of dicksucking they get on Blabbermouth.