YTSEJAM Digest 5388
Today's Topics:
1) An unsubscription suggestion...
by Josh.Brand@stpaul.com
2) Re: Springsteen/Set Lists
by Brian Hayden <hayd0029@tc.umn.edu>
3) Re: Finally Free question...
by Erik Hulsegge <ehulsegge@spfbeheer.nl>
4) re: Finally Free question...
by "Pat Sullivan" <sullys@mediaone.net>
5) Re: LITS site mp3 info
by "Timo Virkkala" <wt@nic.fi>
6) theory/music reading
by "Fran Brennan" <okelnard@hotmail.com>
7) theory, record player, Bruce
by "Steven Zebrowski" <szebro1@gl.umbc.edu>
8) Re Re Re: A Question of Theory
by "Gervois Stephen" <stephen.gervois@free.fr>
9) Re: Rammstein vs. G.G. Allen
by "Kenn de Mello" <k_demell@oz.plymouth.edu>
10) Re: Setlist
by "Korg Ecksthrey" <korgx3@safelink.net>
11) Re: TSM chords / TAB?
by Andrew Coutermarsh <a_couter@oz.plymouth.edu>
12) FF, theory, Petrucci interview
by "Awake ." <awake@buffymail.com>
13) Re: Re Re Re: A Question of Theory
by "Kenn de Mello" <k_demell@oz.plymouth.edu>
14) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5386
by Magus12551@aol.com
15) Talking out of one's ass produces only shit.
by "Korg Ecksthrey" <korgx3@safelink.net>
16) Keyboard Debacles, Theory (offtopicer than offtopic)
by Jens Johansson <jens@panix.com>
17) Re: I'd pay for HOB broadcast
by Brooks Edman <drumstik@home.com>
18) "Petrucci Jazz Song"
by "Fran Brennan" <okelnard@hotmail.com>
19) Re: "Petrucci Jazz Song"
by "Carlos Alfaro" <calfaro@yunque.net>
20) Re: "Petrucci Jazz Song"
by Emre Topuzoglu <Emret@ispro.net.tr>
21) Pain of Salvation/Entropia
by Brian Hansen <bhansen10@yahoo.com>
22) Re: Finally Free question...
by Damon Fibraio <dfibraio@home.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:53:15 -0600
From: Josh.Brand@stpaul.com
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: An unsubscription suggestion...
Message-ID: <862568A1.004C5042.00@astpls86.stpaul.com>
Hey, fellow jammers. If you're like me (and I know I am) you've probably
become more than just a little annoyed with the seemingly endless barrage of
unsub requests lately. And, as is now as it always has been, someone e-mails the
guy and tells him/her how to unsub, or we post it to the jam, or point them to
the site.
How's about we try something different? Is there any way possible (<cough>
skadz) to put the sub/unsub directions at the end of each jam right above the
EOJ? Kinda like they used to do on the NMS? (For those who don't know or
remember, the National Midnight Star was a Rush mailing list, now defunct
(tear), that was the only thing to compete with the 'jam for my reading time. DT
on tour? New Rush album? Not gettin' any homework done tonight...)
Anyway, that's my suggestion. Does this make sense to anyone else? Sure,
not all the morons would find it, but we'd trim the number of cry for help posts
on here. Hell, maybe we could but the instructions right above the TOC. Then
it'd be impossible to miss. All ye 'jammers, say your piece, maybe we can get a
solution to this thing. Thanks for your time.
Oh yeah, um, DT rules. There's my DTC :)
Josh
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:58:32 -0600
From: Brian Hayden <hayd0029@tc.umn.edu>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Springsteen/Set Lists
Message-ID: <B4F25028.35DC%hayd0029@tc.umn.edu>
on 3/13/00 12:12 AM, Fett2002@aol.com at Fett2002@aol.com assaulted his
keyboard with:
>
> Brian:
> << LOL. If you really think this, you either have not actually heard
> Springsteen or you're deaf and stupid. Go listen to some of his music
> before you talk about him chump. :) 3-4 random chords? Pllllllllllease. >>
>
> It is a very cruel thing indeed to tell someone to listen to Bruce
> Spermsteen's music. Now, THAT would be sheer torture. My personal version of
> hell would be being straped to a chair and forced to listen to Glory Days
> over and over again for eternity. And I agree that it is a lot easier for
> Springsteen to change set lists than it is for DT. DT songs require them to
> play very tight whereas Springsteens stuff is lot a lot looser by nature.
> It's a lot less stuff to remember to and thus easier to switch around. With
> DTs stuff, the timing is much more difficult because it is so much more
> involved. And does Springsteen REALLY play 3 to 4 hour concerts? I've herad
> this before but I always thought it was an exaggeration.
Yes, his concerts are 3+ hours, I saw him last fall. And I don't know if I'd
start arguing that DT is "tighter" or "timing is more involved"...yeah, they
use goofy time sigs, but they also only have four instruments to coordinate,
whereas most Springsteen songs have at least 5 or 6, and when you're in that
kind of ensemble each person has to remember all the cues, not just their
own. The E Street band doesn't play "loose," at all. They're always very
tight holding down the backbone.
> Just dont create a discussion, but how can you set up your mind when changing
> Metropolis disc to Bruce? i mean it must be hard to get over it ..changing
> complex progrees metal to some sort of pop !
Nope, not at all. To begin with, Springsteen has done few "pop" songs. Lots
of rock and roll and some "folk" stuff. Anyway...why should it be difficult
to listen to two different styles of music? I'm not a person who is
impressed by technical ability. I don't give a flying fuck how fast someone
can play guitar, what kind of time signatures they can use, unless it
furthers the songs. I can respect someone who puts in the practice time to
get good at their instrument, but unless they write good songs I'm not going
to be impressed, which is why DT is pretty much the only "prog(metal)" band
that I like. They write actual songs (or at least they did until their
latest effort), with emotion, and that's what I'm looking for. I could care
less what style, what instruments, what anything. If I like the song, that's
all that matters to me.
-Brian
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:47:11 +0100
From: Erik Hulsegge <ehulsegge@spfbeheer.nl>
To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Finally Free question...
Message-ID: <F12B3ED94800D211A2F00060946988CAA453BC@mail.spfbeheer.nl>
" Maybe it's not as obvious to others as it is to me - but the chords=20
on the record player are exactly those of "Regression" / "The Spirit=20
Carries On." It's just an orchestral version played off a keyboard"
I think you are right, after the show in Zwolle Jordan told me that this
part whas actually written and composed by himself. Actually the whole
version of this musical piece was played after the show in Europe.
Erik Hulsegge
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:58:43 -0500
From: "Pat Sullivan" <sullys@mediaone.net>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: re: Finally Free question...
Message-ID: <000001bf8cfc$a0d7aec0$ad0d010a@bgpma.caregroup.org>
>> This is probably a dumb question: but when Nicholas plays the record on
>> Finally Free, is that DT playing on the record player, or is it some
>> other composition?
> Actually, I think from what I read back when the album first came out is
> that is some theme from the Clockwork Orange. Proabably a tip of the hat
to
> the late Stanley Kubrick from Mike.
Actually actually, if you've hung around after DT's shows, they play a
longer version of that piece, and it's just a different version of
"Regression" from SFAM.
__Pat Sullivan_______________________
sullys@mediaone.net
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/sullys/
AIM: TOWHTSTS
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:33:45 +0200
From: "Timo Virkkala" <wt@nic.fi>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: LITS site mp3 info
Message-ID: <004801bf8d01$f824aca0$fce126d4@pentium>
>CyberDuke wrote:
>
>> LOLOL, what is that WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE mp3 on there? Who is singing
>> and who the hell is those screaming funny vocals? :)))))
>> Gotta know this.
>Didnt it became known that that wasnt Jp at all? I think i remember
>something about it being some friend of Kevin moore or something who did
>it... at least AFAIK, i have a video of a JP clinic in which the guy who
>taped it approached jp and asked him, and jp said it wasnt him, twice!
The guy singing and screaming is Chris Collins, Dream Theater's (or
Majesty's, at that point) first vocalist. Somehow he got a hold of a tape
Petrucci had recorded for a student and added some vocals into it =)
-WT-
BTW. I now have 9071 messages in my Ytsejam folder.. I wonder if I should
delete some.. =)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:06:32 PST
From: "Fran Brennan" <okelnard@hotmail.com>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: theory/music reading
Message-ID: <20000313160632.54410.qmail@hotmail.com>
Repeat after me: "reading music DOES NOT equate to knowing theory". 99% of
high school band musicians have no problem reading music, but know NOTHING
about theory. I used the spain analogy because, if you live in a country
and don't know the language, you CAN make a living, and you CAN survive, but
you don't really have any idea what's going on. Same thing with theory.
-Banjoman
np: Rush - Signals
I wrote:> If you want to seriously pursue playing and writing music, you
should
>learn theory. Why? Because if you want to live in Spain, you'd better
>learn Spanish.> -Fran/Banjoman
Andrew Wrote:Pavarotti can't read music.
(Sorry to use the analogy, but) Yanni can't read music.
Just because you want to be serious about music, it doesn't mean you HAVE
to learn theory.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:19:49 -0500
From: "Steven Zebrowski" <szebro1@gl.umbc.edu>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: theory, record player, Bruce
Message-ID: <000e01bf8d07$f82931c0$0200010a@steve>
> Having said that, I will also say that theory training in NO WAY makes you
> a better composer. I know some absolutely INCREDIBLE composers who know
> jack about theory. In fact, I sometimes feel limited by the extensive
> theory knowledge I have - it makes me less experimental (in a subconscious
> way - even when I WANT to be experimental I have trouble) and less able to
> try very different things.
Then the problem isn't your "extensive" theory knowledge. The problem is
you. Learning theory does NOT (at least, it shouldn't) give you a little
voice in your head that says, "Don't resolve that tritione that way!" or "Go
back and fix that V7/vi that you left unresolved!" The theory isn't making
you less experimental unless you are looking at it as a set of rules.
Western music theory should not be looked at so much as a set of rules or
laws, but more like a set of "truths." For example, "All leading tones must
resolve to the upper tonic" can be more constructively said, "It is true
that, to most western listeners, the resolution of the leading tone to the
upper tonic will sound natural. Other resolutions will will sound harsh or
jarring." Do with that information what you will. Many theory texts and
teachers will utilize the former rather than the latter. That is
unfortunate. Still, you can't blame the knowledge in your head for your
decision not to ignore it.
> > This is probably a dumb question: but when Nicholas plays the record on
> > Finally Free, is that DT playing on the record player, or is it some
> > other composition?
>
> > Good question...i think it might be done in Jordan's Kurzweil?
>
> I believe that it's a cut from the Wall . . . but I could be wrong.
Anyone
> else have a take on this (and if i'm wrong, please don't flame me for a
week
> again . . .). l8r.
>
> Actually, I think from what I read back when the album first came out is
> that is some theme from the Clockwork Orange. Proabably a tip of the hat
to
> the late Stanley Kubrick from Mike.
Dudes, it's "Regression."
> > If you want to seriously pursue playing and writing music, you should
> > learn theory. Why? Because if you want to live in Spain, you'd better
> > learn Spanish.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I always tell people that, of
course, theory is not necesary to playing in a garage band. But I tell them
that music is indeed a language, and that speaking the language will help
your communication with other musicians immeasureably.
> Pavarotti can't read music.
and he's an amaxing SINGER, but an extremely limited musician. He's someone
who happens to be famous for making music, not because he's any good, but
just because people like it. Although I would rather listen to Pavarotti
any day of the week, I put him in the same category as someone like Yanni...
> Yanni can't read music.
And that is only a testament to the talent of the 30- or 40-odd other guys
(MUSICIANS) who are onstage with him making him sound good. Of course,
that's biased because I hate Yanni's music.
> Just because you want to be serious about music, it doesn't mean you HAVE
> to learn theory.
Being serious about music means learning theory. You're fooling yourself if
you think otherwise.
And nobody send in a list of a bunch of "musicians" you think are talented
who don't know any theory, because I just don't care. :)
> involved. And does Springsteen REALLY play 3 to 4 hour concerts? I've
herad
> this before but I always thought it was an exaggeration.
Yeah, he does. He usually just plays as long as he feels like. Could be 2
hours, could be 4. Next time he comes through your town, read the review of
the show (papers ALWAYS review Bruce concerts) and see if they say how long
he played, how many encores, etc.
The morning after one Bruce concert there was a morning show DJ who made a
joke about Bruce playing all through the night into the morning, and said
something about Bruce STILL playing. This caused a bunch of people who left
early to go back to the venue because they believed him. :P
Steve Z
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1993 17:14:58 +0100
From: "Gervois Stephen" <stephen.gervois@free.fr>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re Re Re: A Question of Theory
Message-ID: <004801b7b3ba$cf7ad2c0$056464c8@cycosystems>
In reply to Chris (who replied to Kenn de Mello) on the digest 5387 :
> You can't be serious here. Isn't that EXACTLY the same thing as saying
>"Knowing how to build chords won't help you learn to build chords" or
>"knowing how to place a microphone won't help you make a better sounding
>recording"? When you learn bits and pieces of music theory, you gain
pieces
>of the puzzle. It opens doors for you. If you don't master the concepts,
>they can become crutches, and what not, but when you understand music
>better, the process of creating music becomes easier.
Wrong wrong and wrong again, I cannot agree.
1) We're all different and
2) I can start by telling you about what I've lived :
I'm a bassist and have played by ear for nearly 9 years now and no-one I
know are as nearly as creative musically as I am (I'm not talkin' about the
pros 'a la' Myung or Trujillo ect...).
Once after a very hard time at a cover song I tried my shot at music theory
with my guitarist and found after a while that when I found a tune I would
fall more and more often into the same kind of sounds and 'chords'.
So I don't think that theory is the solution for Kenn de Mello here.
> It doesn't necessarily make you more creative, but it may, considering
>that you'll have more colors on your palette. What it WON'T do is make you
>more proficient on your instrument. Theory is one of the head games in
>music. But all of your musical ideas start at your head, even if you think
>you're just noodling.
No again : Imagination gives you ALL the colors.
When your really good by ear with a lot of training you are very good at
jamming/impros as your instrument is nearly an extension of your body.
> Knowing more facilitates DOING more.
It's not a question of knowing more or not :
Theory let's you learn tricks,
and you can put up a show and sound good,
but your music sounds like the others around you,
if you let out and wild 9 times out of 10 it may be shit but...
.. from time to time ...
It just might be GODLIKE ;-P
So Kenn de Mello, let go and f**k theory.
See ye,
The Mad Dreaming FrancoIrish Cyco
(a deadly mixture : sgervois@free.fr)
"Open your eyes - Victoria"
DREAMTHEATER - Finally free
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:34:02 -0500
From: "Kenn de Mello" <k_demell@oz.plymouth.edu>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Rammstein vs. G.G. Allen
Message-ID: <001f01bf8d09$f12ddcc0$b7ab889e@plymouth.edu>
*snip*
lol
I stand corrected.
Kenn.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:34:37 -0700
From: "Korg Ecksthrey" <korgx3@safelink.net>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Setlist
Message-ID: <002b01bf8d0a$0c3ee0e0$0201010a@meserver.meserver.com>
>i mean it must be hard to get over it ..changing complex progrees metal
>to some sort of pop !
Bah. Whatever. I have a little random MP3 setup that will sometimes flip
from Symph X to Pearl Jam to Dream Theater to Bryan Adams to Anthrax to
Yanni. If you like the music, why is it difficult to go from one to the
other? Maybe because you're hung like a mosquito? I hear penis-size has
alot to do with why people can't respect various forms of music... Vassar
University has been doing a study so I hear...
-- KorgX3 subscribes you to the John Denver mailing list. NP: John Denver - Sunshine on my Shoulder.mp3------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:57:49 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Coutermarsh <a_couter@oz.plymouth.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Re: TSM chords / TAB? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003131156490.78259-100000@oz.plymouth.edu>
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Emre Topuzoglu wrote:
> i have original tab books scaned as gif`s,
If you could find a way to send me The Silent Man, I'd be MUCH obliged. You could email them to me (but not at this address, rather at a_couter@cs.plymouth.edu), or find a way to upload them to my computer. But I'd be extremely happy if you could do it.
------------------------------------------------- Andrew Coutermarsh a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu http://cout.dhs.org/ Cloak on IRC ICQ: 2513441 ------------------------------------------------- "Friends are people who'll help you move. REAL friends are people who'll help you move BODIES." -------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 13 Mar 2000 17:02:01 -0000 From: "Awake ." <awake@buffymail.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: FF, theory, Petrucci interview Message-ID: <20000313170201.3006.qmail@whitfield.chek.com>
>From: Joe DeAngelo <jdeangelo@home.com> >Subject: Finally Free question... > >This is probably a dumb question: but when Nicholas >plays the record on Finally Free, is that DT playing >on the record player, or is it some other composition?
Y'know, I've often wondered if that scratchy bit at the end wasn't Mr Portnoy having a sly dig at the 'Jam... Y'know, like "Change the fuckin' record!!!!"
>From: "Fran Brennan" <okelnard@hotmail.com> >Subject: theory > >If you want to seriously pursue playing and writing >music, you should learn theory. Why? Because if you >want to live in Spain, you'd better learn Spanish.
Amen. This sums it up nicely, actually. Although you could probably get by without speaking Spanish, hand signals and whatnot are much less effective than taking the time to learn the language. I mean, basically, I don't think a person who doesn't know theory should be allowed to call themselves a musician - it's just laziness not to learn theory as it applies to what you're doing. Sure, you can get by without it, but it's hand signals instead of Spanish.
>From: "Korg Ecksthrey" <korgx3@safelink.net> >Subject: John Petrucci Interview. > >This is a pretty cool interview where JP gives a >little more insight into the story behind SFAM.
This is a way cool interview, Korgie...I was interested that it was Charlie who found the Majesty symbol, I always figured it'd have been Petrucci who came up with it.
Also, this has to be worth putting in the FAQ:
"(Historical Note: Any DT fans looking for a pilgrimage opportunity that's the equivalent of a Beatlefan visit to Liverpool, spend a day at Harrison's Pond in Kings Park New York, find Mrs Gilbert and thank her for inspiring John Petrucci to make music)"
~Simon
Sign-up for free Buffy the Vampire Slayer e-mail at http://www.buffymail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:10:56 -0500 From: "Kenn de Mello" <k_demell@oz.plymouth.edu> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Re: Re Re Re: A Question of Theory Message-ID: <002d01bf8d0f$18b98320$b7ab889e@plymouth.edu>
> > So Kenn de Mello, let go and f**k theory. > > See ye, > > The Mad Dreaming FrancoIrish Cyco > (a deadly mixture : sgervois@free.fr)
Um, I would not take offense to this if you had actually included some of MY post in your rant. I think you should go back and see what I actually said, you might be surprised...
Kenn de Mello Wrote:
> There was mention about theory not too long ago on the jam. I think the >resounding answer about theory was: it is beneficial when songwriting so >that you know if things are going to go smoothly and as a guide to >harmonization and all that stuff, BUT it in no way makes you more creative >or helps you come up with music. IMO it is a very nice thing to know about, >but I ignore it sometimes when I am just noodling around on my guitar or >keyboard. If I come up with something I like I look at and analyze it to >see what I was actually doing. This way I could possibly come up with other >parts, say guitar II, or keyboard chords. I searched quickly and found the >following link http://www.musictheory.halifax.ns.ca/ hopefully you will find >this somewhat informative. I haven't looked at it at all personally.
Next time read MY message before you tell me to do anything.
A pretty annoyed Kenn.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:05:57 EST From: Magus12551@aol.com To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5386 Message-ID: <28.2e74a02.25fe8805@aol.com>
> >The also had a sign that said Hey Abbott > while they could be referencing Abbot and Costello (source > of the line), I doubt it. Check the lyrics for any phrase > like 'he about'
Well "Hey Abbott" is a line from the movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights. The abbot is walking down the aisle to marry the sherriff and mariam (I forget her name), while people call to him. They all say "Good morrow abbot" in a formal way until he geets to the end of the aisle. There, a guy shouts out "HEY ABBOTT!" at which poinit the abbot says aside "I hate that guy!". It could be a reference to that movie..
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:07:55 -0700 From: "Korg Ecksthrey" <korgx3@safelink.net> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Talking out of one's ass produces only shit. Message-ID: <004a01bf8d17$1aa44280$0201010a@meserver.meserver.com>
>Being serious about music means learning theory. You're fooling yourself >you think otherwise.
Sorry Steve, but that is one of the most "ass"inine statements I've read this year. :) I guess I'm just not serious about music since I haven't taken the time to learn theory. As far as your Yanni theory goes, he writes and arranges >everything< those 30 to 40 band/orchestra members plays, without theory knowledge. Of course, he developed his own form of "theory" and uses his own strange heiroglyph thingys to record his music. He basically has to give his stuff to other folks to transcribe, though. But I guess he can't be serious since he doesn't conform to our Western Standards, hmmm?
I'm sure some of his folks might go off and do a little improv, but who's to blame them? They kick ass and have the right to show off. :) -- KorgX3 must not be able to fight for shit since he never learned Karate. NP: Metallica - Through the Never.mp3
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:17:46 -0500 From: Jens Johansson <jens@panix.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Keyboard Debacles, Theory (offtopicer than offtopic) Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20000313141746.006b12a4@popserver.panix.com>
On 18:24 2000/03/10 -0800, you wrote:
[chris p] > I think it looks cooler to have multiple boards,
Other issues: reliability, freight hassles, glitches between patch changes.
> His limit is in sounds, not technical applications.
Hey, limits are what makes any instrument interesting!
> Can you explain how multiple boards would help this? You still have to > program sounds and midi routines so you can change your patches. You're > either prepared or you're not, whether it's 1 board or 12.
Well, one may think of it as having key zones without the hassle of setting up key zones or even planning for the contingency.
One is never prepared. Thankfully. I remember a transcendent moment in my life -- I had destroyed a keyboard by checking it onto a flight between Copenhagen and Vienna.. me, my brother and Hellborg were doing a trio gig with improvised material at some jazz festival in Wiesen (small Austrian town in the strawberry district close to the hungarian border). So anyway, I arrive half an hour before show time, and the fucking thing doesn't even power on. Stuck in strawberry country without an instrument!!! :) The only thing they had there was an old B3.
And the gig was great!! Really a lot of fun. It opened my eyes to that instrument again, which directly led to the "e" record with Jonas.. you might even speculate wildly that that odd organ trio CD partly inspired Billy Sheehan to cook up his batch of "Niacin". (But that really would be wild speculation.)
> If you CAN do it all on one board, and not feel any > limitations imposed upon you as a result of that decision, then aren't the > other boards just there to look pretty?
Yes.
Which leads us to...
> Hey, I need a sound module or a used keyboard. I already have a controller [ ... ] > which I have seen for somewhat cheap, and that new Roland JV 1010 > (I guess it's not THAT new anymore)
[matt g] > You may want to check out the Roland JV-1080 rackmount unit. IMO, I > consider this to be a great all-around unit. The JV-1080 has tons of > great patches. If you do enough tweaking with some of the lead patches, you > can get some phat tone.
I second that.. it's a good, cheap, ubiquitous, extremely sturdy workhorse machine. Very good programmable effects (remember master Jobson's words). There's a variety of sample expansion cards. Sturdy.. I don't know how many times I've seen my 1080 come down the luggage conveyor belt without the rack lids, and a few front teeth missing. Still _always_ works. (I have it in one of those SKB racks -- the lids basically fall off if you look at them wrong) Ubiquitous is important to me, I could tell another story about a show in Madrid I did with Strato -- where my 1080 was STOLEN a few hours before the show!! I told the guys in the band my Austrian Strawberry Jam Story and mentioned, with an insane glint in my eyes, an old dusty, deflated accordion that I had found in the wardrobe room. Sadly, nobody seemed that enthusiastic about the accordion. Damned metal types. :) Anyway, locating a 1080 and the proper expansion card in the middle of Madrid is a bit like locating mandolin stri! ngs in the middle of Austin -- I wouldn't say it rains 1080's on the Spanish plain, but almost.
1080 cons: patch change glitches if you're not careful. Somewhat cheesy reverb. Small and easy to steal. :)
I have a 2080 as well, which allows you to run three of the "patch mode programmable effects" in parallel in performance mode (which means "multi channel mode" in rolandspeak). It's possible that the 1080 patches sound a little different on the 2080... or it could all be in my head. I know for a fact though that for some idiotic reason they disabled controller # 6 in the 2080 OS. Anyway, all the "new" 2080 patch presets work in a 1080 and are available on the 'net.
> In fact, Jens Johansson has used the 1080 for his leads when touring with Stratovarius.
Yes, but it took me a while (couple of years) to make an acceptable lead sound, though. I'm still fiddling with it..
> There's a couple on ebay that > are slightly below $700, but you may be able to find one cheaper if you > keep looking.
The 1010 is another option if you like those sounds and don't care about output routing or editing patches from the front panel. I find the extra outputs of the 1080/2080 indispensable for live... just route different patches to different outputs and have stomp boxes hooked up to them.
[zembrowski] > Western music theory should not be looked at so much as a set of rules or > laws, but more like a set of "truths." For example, "All leading tones must > resolve to the upper tonic" can be more constructively said, "It is true > that, to most western listeners, the resolution of the leading tone to the > upper tonic will sound natural. Other resolutions will will sound harsh or > jarring." Do with that information what you will. Many theory texts and > teachers will utilize the former rather than the latter. That is > unfortunate. Still, you can't blame the knowledge in your head for your > decision not to ignore it.
You know, first of all, Western listeners aren't what they used to be. :) The last century assaulted and a-peppered "western ears" with a lot of non-traditional-western spices... serialism, and lots of music from the rest of the planet.
Anyway, FWIW, my views on "music theory" are:
a) Basic knowledge of the concepts and names of devices are good -- it enables spoken communication with fellow musicians using common terms. Imagine how difficult life as a musicians would be without note names for instance! Higher level concepts are actually birds of the same feather, but at which level you should decide to stop caring is not a black and white issue. Because..
b) this is ART we're talking about here, not computer programming or filling in a tax form.
"Theory." What does it even mean? Do we look at the world of music with Fux' eyes? Schoenberg's, Hindemith's? Or Schenker's? If I name the chord "f h d g a#" (low to high) can any theory tell me what I should pick as a nice-sounding root note ("c# in the octave under the f", according to my ear, but what's the exact rule that excludes the other 11? I don't know.)
I notice a lot of people using "theory" as a sort of shibboleth -- at best, using it as a futile pastime or futile exercise to defend ideas they like, at worst, as a futile exercise in intellectual snobbery and exclusion of fellow (sometimes non-western-eared) humans from some sort of imagined circle of initiates. (That doesn't mean that "Theory" can't have other, more benevolent uses or that it can't be fun.)
"Western Theory" is a lot like Freudian psychoanalysis, it's basically defined completely in its own terms, and with a little fantasy you can twist its little arm and make it say anything you want -- even totally contradictory statements about the same musical structures. If you ask three really creative experts to analyze a few bars from the score of "Jaws" I'm sure none of them would agree. :)
And if you make the experiment to encode these so called "western rules" into generative procedures the result is rubbish -- completely unmusical. Which suggests to me that the rules are not extremely important.
> > > Why? Because if you want to live in Spain, you'd better > > > learn Spanish. > I couldn't have said it better myself. [ ... ] > Being serious about music means learning theory. You're fooling yourself if > you think otherwise.
I think I can agree with most of this, but with the slant that I think anyone being serious about music will WANT to know more about it sooner or later. The Spain analogy is indeed good. If you move to Spain, eventually you will WANT to learn a little Spanish... it makes day to day life (post office, supermarket, fights with your wife's parents) so much easier. The fallacy I see (if there even is one) is the belief that you CAN "learn Spanish", or that there even is such a thing as One, True, Perfect Spanish. "Learning a little Spanish" should not in any way imply that it's useful for all immigrants to Spain to strive for "perfection": would "perfection" be spot-on mastery of Andalusian, Madrid, and Catalan dialect/slang, being able to recite Cervantes at the drop of a hat? (And of course, then you visit San Sebastian and see what good your painstakingly acquired shibboleth of "perfect Spanish with an Andalusian accent" is going to do you. :)
Another way to put it: I can make a totally grammatically correct sentence like: "Sleepless sacramental hyperboles are cresting parenthetically, and a somewhat commodious handkerchief lamented whilst a few eleemosynary cribbage-boards slurred."
No rules broken, but meaningless nonetheless. Or: "I the rules because this sentence no verbs."
Which is "wrong," but makes more sense to me, anyway.
You can of course argue that language is different because music has no semantic content, I feel the two are very closely related, anyway.. same sense organs.. bla bla bla bla bla 2)B¢ &c.....
> And nobody send in a list of a bunch of "musicians" you think are talented > who don't know any theory, because I just don't care. :)
Bach's fugues are considered sub-optimal by a lot of counterpoint teachers when it comes to fugal writing, because he breaks a lot of the rules. That says a lot to me about the limits of rule-based music theory systems, anyway!!!
OK, enough word diarrhea from this corner of the Great Chaos I think!! :)
--- Jens. (offline) <jens@panix.com> (http://www.panix.com/~jens/)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:02:20 -0500 From: Brooks Edman <drumstik@home.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: I'd pay for HOB broadcast Message-ID: <38CD494C.3D6C9083@home.com>
I would actually like to trade for some DT stuff like bootleg CD's or tapes, Bootleg videos, Liquid Tension stuff, any kind of cool stuff I would love to trade. Just send me an e-mail and we can talk.
Brooks Edman, drumstik@home.com
> I was gonna send this privately, but I guess I'd be > speaking on behalf of several Jammers when I say: > > I don't have WebTV or anything remotely resembling it... > So how much d'you want for a copy? > > ~Simon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:03:23 PST From: "Fran Brennan" <okelnard@hotmail.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: "Petrucci Jazz Song" Message-ID: <20000313200323.61422.qmail@hotmail.com>
I just downloaded an MP3 called 'petrucci jazz song'. It's 1:46 of JP sheddin' over a funk/fusion groove. I wouldn't have believed it, but it's unmistakably JP. Does anyone know what this is, or if it's supposed to be longer than 1:46 (it sounds like it gets cut off at the end) -Fran/Banjoman
np: PJS.mp3 =^)
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:17:25 -0400 From: "Carlos Alfaro" <calfaro@yunque.net> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Re: "Petrucci Jazz Song" Message-ID: <000501bf8d29$26313d80$37351ec8@yunque.net>
> I just downloaded an MP3 called 'petrucci jazz song'. It's 1:46 of JP > sheddin' over a funk/fusion groove. I wouldn't have believed it, but it's > unmistakably JP. Does anyone know what this is, or if it's supposed to be > longer than 1:46 (it sounds like it gets cut off at the end) > -Fran/Banjoman > > np: PJS.mp3 =^) > > _________________________
If its a drum machine in the background, and the song starts with a really cheesy drum fill ... i think that song is taken off one of jp's excercises in the Rock Discipline video..
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:15:07 +0200 From: Emre Topuzoglu <Emret@ispro.net.tr> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: "Petrucci Jazz Song" Message-ID: <38CD4C4A.59574763@ispro.net.tr>
any chance it to be Longisland Expressway ? do you know it ? acoustic guitar and bass
Fran Brennan wrote: > > I just downloaded an MP3 called 'petrucci jazz song'. It's 1:46 of JP > sheddin' over a funk/fusion groove. I wouldn't have believed it, but it's > unmistakably JP. Does anyone know what this is, or if it's supposed to be > longer than 1:46 (it sounds like it gets cut off at the end) > -Fran/Banjoman > > np: PJS.mp3 =^) > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:50:26 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Hansen <bhansen10@yahoo.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Pain of Salvation/Entropia Message-ID: <20000313215026.22299.qmail@web106.yahoomail.com>
I picked up Pain of Salvation's Entropia after hearing some rave reviews. I have to agree. It's a great disc.
My question:
There's a blank spot on track 11 (Nightmist) at the 4:32 mark. Is it just my cd, or are they all like that? It's like someone just erased a second right there in the middle of the song...
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:27:09 -0500 From: Damon Fibraio <dfibraio@home.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Finally Free question... Message-ID: <4.2.2.20000313172556.00a33410@mail.avnl1.nj.home.com>
That recording sounds quite a lot like the segments from the beginning of regression and The Sperit Carries on. It is also the same chord structure as in the beginning of through Her Eyes. I would imagine that it is Jordan's Kurzweil playing a smple, since the record pops sound ... a little . fake. Although the scratch at te end sounds real enough. At 12:10 AM 3/13/00 , you wrote:
>I believe that it's a cut from the Wall . . . but I could be wrong. Anyone >else have a take on this (and if i'm wrong, please don't flame me for a week >again . . .). l8r. > > >----- Original Message ----- >]From: Joe DeAngelo <jdeangelo@home.com> >To: Multiple recipients of list <ytsejam@torchsong.com> >Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 11:19 PM >Subject: Finally Free question... > > > > > > This is probably a dumb question: but when Nicholas plays the record on > > Finally Free, is that DT playing on the record player, or is it some > > other composition? > > > > Thanks, > > - Joe D.
-- Damon Fibraio, and new guide dog Melody email: dfibraio@home.com computer consultant, musician, radio broadcaster, and public nuisance Listen to No Holds Barred Radio. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Live show on Tuesdays from 8 to 11 p.m. eastern time go to http://www.nhbradio.com for more details or point winamp to 216.32.166.89:21944. "I can see much clearer, now I'm blind."--Dream Theater, Take the Time, Images and Words
------------------------------
End of YTSEJAM Digest 5388 **************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:08:03 EST