|
Post by Holly Diver on Nov 8, 2021 13:30:35 GMT
I didn’t even know that’s who that was when that back and forth was going on. He just kept proving himself wrong over and over then saying, “See, I told you so.” Digging a deeper and deeper hole.
|
|
|
Post by Holly Diver on Nov 8, 2021 15:04:40 GMT
His latest "proof" is a bedroom guitarist's 2.5 year old YouTube clip with a total of 16 views because it is titled one-handed tapping. The really shitty guitarist is of course just doing hammer ons & pull offs to an open string.
|
|
|
Post by graucho on Nov 8, 2021 17:58:45 GMT
Hilarious - he's been called out and can't admit it. Fascinating what lengths some people will go to, in order to not get found out. I hope this fucker isn't someone's manager.
|
|
|
Post by krabapple on Nov 8, 2021 23:34:23 GMT
jesus fucking christ someone needs to tap him on the head, hard
|
|
|
Post by mudflapslim on Nov 8, 2021 23:47:47 GMT
jesus fucking christ someone needs to tap him on the head, hard I think you mean hammer on.
|
|
|
Post by graucho on Nov 9, 2021 0:56:41 GMT
This guy is a monumental prick. If you're on there, over there. Go fuck with him. He deserves it!
|
|
|
Post by Burnie ‘ceedee’ Grungeman on Nov 9, 2021 2:14:42 GMT
I made a new account just to have synthfreek’s back.
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,593
|
Post by daved on Nov 9, 2021 10:12:03 GMT
I love how he brings up YouTube videos to try and prove his point. What an absolute imbecile.
|
|
|
Post by powerpoppackage on Apr 29, 2022 14:12:18 GMT
First Roger Waters couldn't cut it in the Beagles, and now Phil Collins has failed his audition to be the piano player in Wildstar's cover band:
(video of Collins hitting errant key and laughing it off)
|
|
|
Post by Sanjay Gupton on May 1, 2022 13:09:35 GMT
This Phil Collins guy is never gonna make it if he has to keep calling Tony Banks for musical advice.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Sept 13, 2022 17:51:24 GMT
Hard disagree there! When they were trying to figure out who was playing bass, which eventually got sorted out once Martin pointed out that ALL the takes had bass on them, not just the master take, indicating that Paul couldn't have been playing both piano AND bass, George very dryly and succinctly quiped: "He was keen." meaning that there was bass on every take because Paul must have went back and overdubbed bass onto every breakdown and rejected take leading up to the master. (George then seriously answered the question saying in that case it was probably himself who played the bass - if it wasn't overdubbed - if Paul was on piano). Anyway that "he was keen" remark was the funniest moment of the entire Anthology project for me. Another funny (though much less so) line from George (though I had to think about it for a second before I got it) during those listening sessions was when they played 'Tomorrow Never Knows' with Martin adjusting the faders/volume of the individual tracks, and George said "Bring Phil Collins up" (as in turn him up on the Beatles multitrack tape). It took me a few seconds to get it - Phil had covered the song on his first solo album (in a very faithful/carbon-copy-ish version). OTOH Paul had a bit of a dig at George after George misremembered something like which album a song they were listening to was from, and Paul said "Foremost Beatles expert - George Harrison' to which George didn't respond, other than to give a strange look directly into the camera. Hard disagree again. Ringo got George's joke and laughed. Would Ringo have laughed if it was "a dig at Paul" rather than a joke? Backfired? Explain. Also how was it a dig and not a joke. What do YOU think George meant by "he was keen"? "His whole body language and attitude" you mean his being engaged in the conversation and smiling? Paul's "it could have been Ringo" comment didn't strike me as funny. I don't think you understand what a "discussion board" is. Start a blog (and disallow comments) if you just want to make unchallenged statements. Here - if people believe you are incorrect in your statements they are allowed to say so. It looks more like YOU are the one looking for a fight - complaining if anyone dares to disagree with you. Who else here besides you is doing THAT?! 1 - George was NOT nor has anyone involved ever claimed that George was involved on the composition of the song (least of all the lyrics). 2 - George was as "in" on the recording - no more and no less - than he was in on the other four songs from the album that he appeared on that made no comment (either real or implied) about Paul McCartney. At least one of them was a fawning love song to Yoko - is the fact that George also played on that particular song some kind of evidence that George was ALSO in love with Yoko? 3 - George was being a "session musician" on the song - not a bandmate. Why should he share responsibility for a song he only played guitar on, but didn't write. Would you also claim that all the other session musicians who played on the track also shared Lennon's anger at McCartney in that moment - or that they were required to? 4 - Should they have all walked off the session if they didn't like the words, or if they thought they were too harsh? Is paying attention to the lyrics of a song a requirement for studio musicians? 5 - If George even did pay attention to the words, he very well may have though that it was just "John being John" and that he'd change them for the record, like he had with some Beatles songs in the past like (off the top of my head) 'Sexy Sadie' (original lyrics were an attack on the Maharishi) and 'Baby You're A Rich Man' (reportedly originally contained a racist AND homophobic slur against Brian Epstein). 6 - John was the only one responsible for the final lyrics he chose to release on the Imagine album - NO-ONE ELSE. Not even Yoko and Klein (who both allegedly DID have a small hand in the lyrics). It was John's album and he was the only one singing lead on it, so... How AND why? I was responding to what you had said: "what a coincidence that John, Yoko, Allen Klein and George were all involved with the composition and creation of that track." That is clearly implying that George was "IN ON IT" - in on the lyric and it's sentiment. You clearly implied he was responsible in part for the song (beyond the responsibility of any random session musician - which was all he was on the track). ...and what exactly was "totally unnecessary" about me explaining all the reasons (and evidence) that George was NOT responsible for the lyrics of the song? Again does everyone who plays on a song as a session musician need to agree with (or even listen to the lyrics of a song)? If you want to now claim that you had ONLY claimed that George played on the song, you are being disingenuous/lying - as you were quite clearly implying more than that (ie - "what a coincidence") not to mention "...and George were all involved with the composition..." OK enlighten me - make me understand EXACTLY what you meant by "what a coincidence". How is it different from my interpretation? Your the one arguing just now trying to claim I said what I didn't say. Guitar playing as a session musician is not creating - writing is creating. You know I said that but you are trying to claim I didn't and/or trying to claim there's no difference - you're being disingenuous AGAIN. As long as you do THAT - YOU are the argumentative one. Of course you could explain (or take back/apologize for) your original "what a coincidence" comment if it didn't mean what everyone knows/understands is the clear meaning of the expression. "Composition and creation" which is the direct quote from the original post I was answering? NO! Are you claiming otherwise? As much importance? NO. Like I said a song is a song (melody and lyrics). If you don't have that, there's nothing to "arrange". However, in rare instances maybe/arguably it can make the difference in whether a song becomes a hit single (but how could you prove it, when you suspect that may be the case)?. One rare example of when "arguably" (but who *really* can say for sure) an arrangement touch transformed a song into a hit single was the part Kim Carnes' keyboardist came up with for her cover version of the song 'Bette Davis Eyes'. However I fail to see what that has to do 'How Do You Sleep'? 'How Do You Sleep' was never a single, let alone a hit single, and George didn't add anything to make the song single-worthy. Very different from the new keyboard hook that *arguably* was what transformed a cover of a decade old album track (from an obscure album that didn't sell much) into one of the biggest hit singles of all time. According to one of Fred Bronson's Billboard Chart books 'Bette Davis Eyes' was Billboard's #3 song of the year for 1981, also #3 song for the decade of the 1980s and #61 on the list of the 5000 all time biggest hit singles of the rock era from July 1955 to Feb 2007). Of course Kim Carnes keyboardist got no writer credit/ royalties for that arrangement contribution, despite it "arguably" being the main hook of the song that made it such a big hit. Kim Carnes couldn't cut him in for co-songwriter royalties even if she wanted to, because it was a cover that she didn't write. IIRC Jackie DeShannon wrote it and her own version I don't believe was even released as a single (let alone a hit single). So all the writer royalties go to Jackie DeShannon (and her co-writer(s) if there was one or more) with no co-writer credit going to the keyboard player's part on Kim Carnes massive hit cover version of the song which was released almost a decade after DeShannon's original non-hit version. Bowie was smart enough to recognize an arrangement touch that was far too good to waste on a cover. Carlos Alomar came up with a guitar riff for Bowie's cover of (a song I forgot the name of) but Bowie told him it was "too good" and that they should save it for themselves and write a brand new song based on it. Lennon happened to be present at the session, where that guitar part was used as the basis to write a brand new song - 'Fame' (credited to Bowie/Lennon/Alomar - though not *necessarily* credited in that order, since I didn't look it up). It became Bowie's first US #1 single, and earned some healthy (and presumably still ongoing) co-writer royalties for Alomar. His guitar part/riff was the basis for the song's existence and was its inspiration/starting point, which makes him a co-writer. If Bowie hadn't noticed its potential, that guitar riff would have been wasted on a cover of something else, with Bowie missing out on a US #1 single and Alomar (and Bowie/Lennon) missing out on a lot of songwriting royalties. WOW - I thought (because you said) you were done. Funny how you refuse to answer my questions, but expect me to answer yours. Also funny that you are going out of your way to re-engage with me, since you are now replying to my post that was responding to someone else. I wasn't even addressing/responding to you with the post you just quoted to re-engage with me. Also funny how you complained multiple times in this thread that anyone dares to respond to you with a dissenting opinion, but its A-OK for YOU to do it - hypocrite! Huh?! Are you just trying to be argumentative at this point - as that is NOT what I said. If one is "credited" it means "credited as a writer". No-one other than the actual "songwriter(s)" is entitled to songwriting credits/royalties. However anyone can choose to make any inside deal they want within a band. Some bands choose to share their songwriting credit and royalties despite not everyone writing to the same degree (or at all). For instance Van Halen shared their songwriting royalties/credits four ways, even though only two members wrote the songs. (Well until Eddie got Mike to sign away all his prior songwriting credits and royalties (I believe in order for Eddie to allow him to stay in the band for a big money reunion tour - though he never did make his brother agree to that same deal - as like Mike, his brother wasn't a real songwriting contributor to the band either). Another band that chooses to share songwriting credits/royalties (ALL revenue streams in fact - they all make the EXACT same money as each other) is Sloan. In Sloan all four members write individually (and *occasionally* together - 2 or more members). They have ALWAYS shared ALL the money equally including songwriter royalties - even in the beginning when one guy was writing the lion's share (ie half or more) of each album while the others were playing catch up to his songwriting productivity. Now (and for a long time now) the albums are more or less split equally among all four members as writers. The (originally) main writer (who also started the band, recruiting the other members) said he never regretted sharing his writer royalties with the others in the beginning when he was the main writer, as he knew they were all meant to catch up to him (which they all eventually did). He figured it was the best way to keep everyone happy and all want to stay in the band. He said he felt vindicated by the fact that his band has lasted over 30 years thusfar (and with ZERO line-up changes) while all their contemporaries had split up within their first decade of making records. That's some examples of what some individual bands *choose* to do in order to keep everyone happy, but that's the exception - not the rule. The "rule" is and has always been - songwriting is melody and lyrics - anything beyond that is arrangement. Again if certain bands want to share everything equally among themselves, that's their own business. Again if there's no song, there's nothing to musically arrange. How can you make "silence" better by "musically arranging it"? What's your point in all of this, exactly? You're boring me at this point - not to mention my guess is you are just trying to set some kind of trap to make me say something I don't mean or make me contradict myself or something... So if you have an actual point - either make it or we're done!
|
|
bradman
Better than Steve
Posts: 5,143
|
Post by bradman on Sept 13, 2022 20:29:08 GMT
He must be fun at parties.
|
|
|
Post by Potsie Hoofman on Sept 13, 2022 20:43:09 GMT
What makes you think he gets invited?
|
|
|
Post by shinyshiny on Jun 6, 2023 19:28:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Smith on Jun 6, 2023 20:26:58 GMT
holy shit what a punisher
|
|