Rate That Song

[MarkBastable]

Irredeemably pointless. 0/10.

No - hang on - I'll give it 1/10 for collecting together a bunch of CCTV and amateur footage of unsuspecting people and making fun of them.


It took balls to release this in 1969, even if you were the Beatles.

[Shalot]

8/10

Reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUWzeOcBYxI

[metal134]

It took balls to release this in 1969, even if you were the Beatles.

I guarantee that if someone had posted that very same song and it were by, say, Black Sabbath instead of the Beatles, you would have been "blah blah blah, snippy snotty 1/10"

Last song: Kinda trippy 7/10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OorZcOzNcgE

[MarkBastable]

I guarantee that if someone had posted that very same song and it were by, say, Black Sabbath instead of the Beatles, you would have been "blah blah blah, snippy snotty 1/10"

I'm not sure that makes sense even as a theory, let alone as a guarantee.


I think Purple have aged less well than a lot of their contemporaries, and it's something to do with the bottom end. You can't knock the playing, but it all sounds very specifically 1971 in a way that, for instance, Sabbath don't - which is odd, because the guys in Purple were much better musicians. Maybe the thing about Purple is that they were so perfectly a creation of their time, it's difficult for them to transcend it. 6/10


Possibly better than the studio version.

[metal134]

Sure does make sense.

[MarkBastable]

Sure does make sense.

Not really - because I'd like any band who could write that, and the fact that I liked them would be a known fact around here, so that when I said I liked that song, you'd say it was because I liked the band and if any other band had recorded it, I'd be snotty about it.

The difference here, I think, is that I don't believe any band but the Beatles could have written that, which is why I like them and it.

Whereas you seem to think that, for instance, Sabbath could have written it, which I think is a pretty flawed proposition.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

This is a tough one...let's think about this; the guy pissed on the Alamo, but I must consider the music only. The song takes me back to a time when I was attempting to outrun blacktop bullies through a field of dew soaked field of grass in my my bell bottoms and earth shoes.

For the fond memories, I'll give it 7/10.

I'm not sure who authored this next one, but the voice is wonderful. (A random pick from my collection of albums)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD71Ks6DXeg

[metal134]

Not really - because I'd like any band who could write that, and the fact that I liked them would be a known fact around here, so that when I said I liked that song, you'd say it was because I liked the band and if any other band had recorded it, I'd be snotty about it.

The difference here, I think, is that I don't believe any band but the Beatles could have written that, which is why I like them and it.

Whereas you seem to think that, for instance, Sabbath could have written it, which I think is a pretty flawed proposition.

Nope.

[MarkBastable]

Nope.

Succinctly argued, as ever. Not necessarily a clear argument, but a short one.

To get back to your original snipe...


I guarantee that if someone had posted that very same song and it were by, say, Black Sabbath instead of the Beatles, you would have been "blah blah blah, snippy snotty 1/10

...is your contention that I'm snotty (which, in your terms, I'd probably admit to) or that I'm inconsistent (which I'm happy to argue against, though it'd be pointless, because the assessment of my consistency is bound to be 100% in my terms, and less than that in yours)?

[MarkBastable]

the guy pissed on the Alamo

True. But this is Ozzie. You can diss him for being a bit stupid (and we wouldn't claim him as our most sparky export), but it's difficult to suggest that he was making an anti-American post-colonial point that implied even the vaguest disrespect to a national monument. He just needed a piss, and he found a wall. That's about as insightful as he gets.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm with metal, even if he isn't arguing his point as well as it could be. Whether or not Black Sabbath could have written that song is irrelevant. He's saying if they, or any metal band (or, maybe more particularly, modern metal), did release that song, or any song similar to it, you most likely would write it off as soon as you realized it was a metal band. You seem to have pretty strict preconceived notions on just about any genre of music that you don't like, and immediately discard it with out even attempting to acknowledge the genre's obvious and irrefutable virtues (creativity, song structure, musicianship). Frankly, you're just close-minded. And, that's okay; at least you seem to realize it. I am too when it comes to certain things: reality television, modern country-rock, dance as an "art."

Anyways, as to Gilliat's song. . . .

Bearable for one song. I felt like I was in a tacky Mexican restaurant, though. That's not the music's fault, though. 6/10.

That penguin is BROOOOOOOOOOTAL!!!

P.S. Metal, the church Slayer vid was hilarious.

[MarkBastable]

You seem to have pretty strict preconceived notions on just about any genre of music that you don't like, and immediately discard it with out even attempting to acknowledge the genre's obvious and irrefutable virtues (creativity, song structure, musicianship)

The notions aren't preconceived. They're conceived - on the basis of experience, as all notions are.

Those things that you list as virtues - I don't think they count in themselves. Creativity, structure, musicianship, imagination, originality, technique, vision are all ingredients that can be combined to make something worthwhile, but all of them feature in a lot of rubbish too.

The question, then, is: what does make a work of art worthwhile - and is it entirely subjective? I think that, actually, there's a large objective element, and it's analysable. It's not just down to 'personal taste' or 'just one opinion'. I think you can identify what's good and what's not, and why it's good or otherwise, and you pretty much have to do that case by case.

However, in a thread like this, no one wants to read that analysis every time, especially when the conclusion is 1/10. So it's better to be briefly dismissive of the stuff you don't like, unless you have something specific to say about it.

My brief dismissiveness doesn't change the music. It doesn't impugn anyone else's opinion of it. It doesn't even, actually, matter. In fact, as people often say when I'm 'snotty' about something, it reflects more on me than it does on the thing I'm being snotty about. Which is fine.

[MystyrMystyry]

9/10 pinguinos on slow pills (actually the clips after that were amusing as well)


I've only just found an extended version of a classic track - excuse the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6IPBN6ARkE

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The notions aren't preconceived. They're conceived - on the basis of experience, as all notions are.

Those things that you list as virtues - I don't think they count in themselves. Creativity, structure, musicianship, imagination, originality, technique, vision are all ingredients that can be combined to make something worthwhile, but all of them feature in a lot of rubbish too.

The question, then, is: what does make a work of art worthwhile - and is it entirely subjective? I think that, actually, there's a large objective element, and it's analysable. It's not just down to 'personal taste' or 'just one opinion'. I think you can identify what's good and what's not, and why it's good or otherwise, and you pretty much have to do that case by case.

However, in a thread like this, no one wants to read that analysis every time, especially when the conclusion is 1/10. So it's better to be briefly dismissive of the stuff you don't like, unless you have something specific to say about it.

My brief dismissiveness doesn't change the music. It doesn't impugn anyone else's opinion of it. It doesn't even, actually, matter. In fact, as people often say when I'm 'snotty' about something, it reflects more on me than it does on the thing I'm being snotty about. Which is fine.

Hey, it's all cool with me, bro. Metal's just a bit rankled, like I was at first when I started participating in this thread. If he's like me, he'll take your 1s and 0s as badges of honor.

Though, I don't think there's any real objective way to analyze music. And, if there is, I highly doubt that objectivity somehow discards all modern heavy metal. Maybe your personal ideas of what that objectivity is, but it's not like there's a set of rules set in stone.

If no one has rated your song by later today, MM, I'll get to it. Just checkin' in, at the moment.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

True. But this is Ozzie...
...He just needed a piss, and he found a wall. That's about as insightful as he gets.

That man, that reincarnation of Santa Anna, left an indelible stain on the soul of Texas!
Gives a whole new meaning to those immortal words; “Remember the Alamo!”
In all honesty, his stain pales in comparison to the greater insult brought on by the sprawl of concrete, traffic and other forms of urban affliction pressing in on all sides.

9/10 pinguinos on slow pills (actually the clips after that were amusing as well)

I've only just found an extended version of a classic track - excuse the video

It is a peaceful Sunday morning, a Carolina Wren heralds the dawn and I have no mettle for metal, therefore my ranking, being influenced by the tranquil state, is 2/10.

Let’s consider the merits of Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Shean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkzAE...eature=related

.