Are modern songs just too long? Please, before you bring up great long songs, realize that I listen to long songs more often than not. I'm not asking about jazz tunes. Nothing where there is improvisation am I suggesting be shortened. I'm talking about modern rock tunes.
Listen to the basic modern tune. No matter if you hear it recorded or see it live, it'll be basically the same song. Sure, they might put in a transition to the next song or something, but it's the same exact song. Now look through that song's artist and their other songs. If you look, there's really about 7 songs with slightly different parts; 4 fast songs, 1 medium song, and 2 slow songs. So, if you go see this group live, you might pay about fifty bucks to see four guys (lead guitar/singer, second guitar/singer, bass, drums) play variations on seven songs. Now, this is fine if you really like those seven songs, but for me it just doesn't cut it.
Dig this then; these bands can produce, before they fall into obscurity, maybe five albums. Each album has about 10-15 songs average, so we can assume that there's 2 of each song on that album. Unless you REALLY like those songs, is it worth it to pay a dollar for each one of those songs?
Here we come to what I suggested at the start; with these songs, you usually get the main idea within the first minute thirty. That's half the song; after that, it's usually got an instrumental break (prewritten) and several repetitions of the chorus. So why not just end the song after the main idea has been passed? That way you can just about double the number of songs on the CD. When you do them live, you can expand them past that first section to give live performances some difference from the CD played really loudly. So you'd get about four of each song on the CD. Isn't that a better value? I mean, unless these bands want to actually put some thought into their songs and expand them past the basic form.
Take Bohemian Rhapsody. If you haven't heard it, go buy some Queen albums and take a listen. With this song, you can't cut it anywhere and get across the main message. The song is an evolution through various styles. If modern groups would take the time and work their songs out past a short tidbit of an emotion, then I'd be all for lengthening their songs. I'd cheer if Linkin Park could put together a song that held my interest for seven minutes. How about if System of a Down made a collaborative song with Metallica and had a band duel? Maybe if ANY of these bands tried doing improvised guitar solos instead of just rhythm breaks we'd have something splendid. As we have it now, I turn on the radio just hoping I get through all seven songs before they start repeating.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
A Question of Law
Ok, so a person can commit mutiple homicide. I've got to figure out how somebody could do multiple suicide. Would one kill oneself several times over? How about having other people kill themselves in the same action? Would that involve becoming a suicidal zombie? Would crimes from life apply to a zombie's three strikes in california? How about this; a person dies and comes back a zombie. A necrophiliac has sex with them. Does their age count from when they were first born or from when they were brought back? If it's when they were brought back, how would the necrophiliac know? I mean, it'd be zombie jailbait! Eeew...
Past that, zombies are just silly. I mean, shambling? Unless one's leg muscles are decomposing or in a late stage of such an action, one could still move pretty quickly as the undead. At least, it seems like that to me. They would be scary as hell; think Braveheart with the undead instead of the Scotts. Mel Gibson wouldn't give a damn about being racked; he'd split into two and slaughter the torturer guys. His guys get their heads chopped off and don't care? Yeah, scary. I know I wouldn't want to be their enemy. Well, shit, they're zombies, so the living are their enemies, so I guess I'm screwed if that happens while I'm alive.
I'll edit this post to reflect responses that I receive and any questions or comments on these responses.
My good friend Ean responded with this:
Laws implicitly apply to the living, so even if you could come back as a zombie and kill yourself, you wouldn't be commiting a crime. You would have to come back to life, and kill yourself again. The same goes for having sex with them. But I doubt a necrophiliac would have sex with a zombie, since a zombie really isn't dead dead, you know?
Response to his statement:
Aren't zombies the living dead, therefore making them in the category of living?
Past that, zombies are just silly. I mean, shambling? Unless one's leg muscles are decomposing or in a late stage of such an action, one could still move pretty quickly as the undead. At least, it seems like that to me. They would be scary as hell; think Braveheart with the undead instead of the Scotts. Mel Gibson wouldn't give a damn about being racked; he'd split into two and slaughter the torturer guys. His guys get their heads chopped off and don't care? Yeah, scary. I know I wouldn't want to be their enemy. Well, shit, they're zombies, so the living are their enemies, so I guess I'm screwed if that happens while I'm alive.
I'll edit this post to reflect responses that I receive and any questions or comments on these responses.
My good friend Ean responded with this:
Laws implicitly apply to the living, so even if you could come back as a zombie and kill yourself, you wouldn't be commiting a crime. You would have to come back to life, and kill yourself again. The same goes for having sex with them. But I doubt a necrophiliac would have sex with a zombie, since a zombie really isn't dead dead, you know?
Response to his statement:
Aren't zombies the living dead, therefore making them in the category of living?
Tuesday, August 8, 2006
Freedom Across the Internet!
If you're a Democrat (as you might have noticed I am), and you've been watching the news (as you might have noticed I do), you'll have heard about a Senate battle in Connecticut (as you might have noticed I have). This race is between somebody who, by his political history, should win no problem, and another dude. Messa Joe Lieberman is the one who, if you just look at what he's done, should win. Now, people are raising a stink about him being too 'Republican' or summat, but I have a reason aside from all that for disliking him. When I told my mom this reason the other night, she looked at me like I might have developed downs syndrome a bit late. The problem is this; he is against violent video games.
Now, me, I'm all for gun control. Make it so everyone has to register their weapons and such so that all gun crimes can be traced. If you know how I think, you'll see how I'm going to use this and can just skip this paragraph. So everyone has to have registrations on their weapons in my ideal law. This does NOT mean that people can't purchase whatever the hell guns they want. This does NOT mean that people are disarmed by their government. This means that people just are registered as owning a shotgun, an AK-47, and so on. Kind of like registering a car.
Lieberman has talked of a bill that would harm the industry greatly (back to games here). If we were talking about guns, he'd be saying that everything past a single shot derringer is bad. As it is, he's tried to suppress violent games as best he can. Which, as you'll notice, is not very well.
I don't have a problem with suppression of these games, in some forms. I don't think that an eight year old should be able to walk into Target and buy GTA. I think that we shouldn't bother with forming a government organization to rate games (as has been supported by Lieberman), I think that we should trust the independent board that already rates the games. Games should be restricted only when needed.
Games rated 'Mature' get treated, these days, as the plague on our youth. The real problem isn't that kids get these games; it's that parents won't take responsibility. I'm not saying anything bad about most parents. Most parents don't let their kids play violent, hateful games and then blame the industry when their kids are messed up. I'm not saying the games cause these problems. I'm doing the same thing done in the book Freakonomics. Great book, by the way. There is an association between intelligence of children in school and how many books are in the homes. There is NOTHING about having books that helps a child learn. It's that the house has parents who obviously care about learning and set an example. A parent buys Doom 3 for their ten year old is not likely to be a caring, nuturing sort of parent. They're more than likely just wanting to get the little brat to shut the hell up about the game. What would help children of our world grow up better is restrictions on parents, not on the games. If a person had to submit an application to be a parent, wait a month, and then have an interview, we'd have more interested parents and fewer fucked up situations like Columbine. Notice here: Columbine and video games are NOT connected. Bad parenting and Columbine ARE. Didn't one of the weapons come from one of the kids' dads or something? Having a weapon like that handy creates an immunity to hateful violence and such. Playing video games (modern ones, especially) show that senseless violence can have consequences (GTA, you get arrested and lose all your crap). Parents need to start owning up to the fact that they chose to raise this kid and they need to take responsibility.
If you've stuck around this long, nicely done. You get to see what this is all about; if you have the power to vote and live in Connecticut, write to Lieberman about this. If you're not of voting age, volunteer for a campaign that has no planks related to video games (don't go for one that supports them, as these create controversy. We want to keep this a private issue, not a government one). No matter who you are, write your elected officials and tell them what your stand is. If you're in another country, write to your officials and tell them your stand. If you don't care, then why did you read all the way down here?
You lose! Good day, sir!
Now, me, I'm all for gun control. Make it so everyone has to register their weapons and such so that all gun crimes can be traced. If you know how I think, you'll see how I'm going to use this and can just skip this paragraph. So everyone has to have registrations on their weapons in my ideal law. This does NOT mean that people can't purchase whatever the hell guns they want. This does NOT mean that people are disarmed by their government. This means that people just are registered as owning a shotgun, an AK-47, and so on. Kind of like registering a car.
Lieberman has talked of a bill that would harm the industry greatly (back to games here). If we were talking about guns, he'd be saying that everything past a single shot derringer is bad. As it is, he's tried to suppress violent games as best he can. Which, as you'll notice, is not very well.
I don't have a problem with suppression of these games, in some forms. I don't think that an eight year old should be able to walk into Target and buy GTA. I think that we shouldn't bother with forming a government organization to rate games (as has been supported by Lieberman), I think that we should trust the independent board that already rates the games. Games should be restricted only when needed.
Games rated 'Mature' get treated, these days, as the plague on our youth. The real problem isn't that kids get these games; it's that parents won't take responsibility. I'm not saying anything bad about most parents. Most parents don't let their kids play violent, hateful games and then blame the industry when their kids are messed up. I'm not saying the games cause these problems. I'm doing the same thing done in the book Freakonomics. Great book, by the way. There is an association between intelligence of children in school and how many books are in the homes. There is NOTHING about having books that helps a child learn. It's that the house has parents who obviously care about learning and set an example. A parent buys Doom 3 for their ten year old is not likely to be a caring, nuturing sort of parent. They're more than likely just wanting to get the little brat to shut the hell up about the game. What would help children of our world grow up better is restrictions on parents, not on the games. If a person had to submit an application to be a parent, wait a month, and then have an interview, we'd have more interested parents and fewer fucked up situations like Columbine. Notice here: Columbine and video games are NOT connected. Bad parenting and Columbine ARE. Didn't one of the weapons come from one of the kids' dads or something? Having a weapon like that handy creates an immunity to hateful violence and such. Playing video games (modern ones, especially) show that senseless violence can have consequences (GTA, you get arrested and lose all your crap). Parents need to start owning up to the fact that they chose to raise this kid and they need to take responsibility.
If you've stuck around this long, nicely done. You get to see what this is all about; if you have the power to vote and live in Connecticut, write to Lieberman about this. If you're not of voting age, volunteer for a campaign that has no planks related to video games (don't go for one that supports them, as these create controversy. We want to keep this a private issue, not a government one). No matter who you are, write your elected officials and tell them what your stand is. If you're in another country, write to your officials and tell them your stand. If you don't care, then why did you read all the way down here?
You lose! Good day, sir!
Saturday, August 5, 2006
A Prayer for a Dictator
I'd like to ask all of you to sit for a second and think of a person you've cared for a great deal. I'd like you to consider if you liked them being sick. If not, then pray, hope, think, whatever it is that you do, that others won't get sick in the same way.
Now that we've done this, I'd like to bring up Fidel Castro. For those of you not in the know, he's been leader in Cuba for a big long time and has just, for the first time in many many years, let his brother rule temporarily. And before anybody says "good riddance," think back to what I asked you to do last paragraph. No matter your feelings for his rule, no matter your feelings about him as a person, no matter your feelings about communism, Castro is a human being. Do you know the saying, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" This is one of those cases. Castro is sick. If you believe in prayer, pray for him to feel better. If you don't, then think good thoughts for his health. You've seen me as a staunch opponent of our current White House, but every surgery Cheney gets I put aside my opinions and hope that he'll feel better. If you believe in the sanctity of human life in any way, shape, or form, then you should hope for even your enemies to be healthy. If you claim to be a pacifist, then no more wishing harm upon those you dislike! If you claim to be pro-life, no declaring that others should suffer for their beliefs! Lets all play nice, ok?
Now that we've done this, I'd like to bring up Fidel Castro. For those of you not in the know, he's been leader in Cuba for a big long time and has just, for the first time in many many years, let his brother rule temporarily. And before anybody says "good riddance," think back to what I asked you to do last paragraph. No matter your feelings for his rule, no matter your feelings about him as a person, no matter your feelings about communism, Castro is a human being. Do you know the saying, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" This is one of those cases. Castro is sick. If you believe in prayer, pray for him to feel better. If you don't, then think good thoughts for his health. You've seen me as a staunch opponent of our current White House, but every surgery Cheney gets I put aside my opinions and hope that he'll feel better. If you believe in the sanctity of human life in any way, shape, or form, then you should hope for even your enemies to be healthy. If you claim to be a pacifist, then no more wishing harm upon those you dislike! If you claim to be pro-life, no declaring that others should suffer for their beliefs! Lets all play nice, ok?
Thursday, August 3, 2006
Leon for Vendetta
So I finally found a Natalie Portman flick that I enjoyed her acting. Until this movie, I hated her and wanted her to just get off the screen. I mean, Star Wars would have been better without her. Shit, have Ani fall in love with Obi Wan. Win win! Brokeback Deathstar, anyone? Mmmmm....Ewan Mcgregor...
Anyway, back to the movie. Leon the Professional. Or Leon. It's written multiple ways (on the package or in the flick). It's a pretty good action movie, if you're into those. It's got Jean Reno, who has recently been in The Da Vinci Code and The Pink Panther. He's a good actor and I know I'd pay him to clean.
Basic plot; Portman's family is murdered and Reno's their neighbor. Reno takes her in and teaches her about being a hitman. She wants revenge on the killers of her little brother (doesn't care about the rest of her dirtbag family), and Reno doesn't like the idea. Not-such-hilarity ensues. Weird love story occurs. No big betrayals or plot twists, but it's an action movie! C'mon! Don't expect TOO much, neh? It's worth renting and watching once, at the very least. I know I'm going to buy myself a copy. V for Vendetta does a similar thing with Portman, but this movie is much better than V. V took a revolutionary concept and smashed it into the ground. This movie took a set of characters and just expanded on how they'd interact. Interesting movie, for the genre of action, at least.
Anyway, back to the movie. Leon the Professional. Or Leon. It's written multiple ways (on the package or in the flick). It's a pretty good action movie, if you're into those. It's got Jean Reno, who has recently been in The Da Vinci Code and The Pink Panther. He's a good actor and I know I'd pay him to clean.
Basic plot; Portman's family is murdered and Reno's their neighbor. Reno takes her in and teaches her about being a hitman. She wants revenge on the killers of her little brother (doesn't care about the rest of her dirtbag family), and Reno doesn't like the idea. Not-such-hilarity ensues. Weird love story occurs. No big betrayals or plot twists, but it's an action movie! C'mon! Don't expect TOO much, neh? It's worth renting and watching once, at the very least. I know I'm going to buy myself a copy. V for Vendetta does a similar thing with Portman, but this movie is much better than V. V took a revolutionary concept and smashed it into the ground. This movie took a set of characters and just expanded on how they'd interact. Interesting movie, for the genre of action, at least.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
