The funniest thing in the universe is footage of Vanilla Ice talking about how different his new stuff is from the old Vanilla Ice, used as a segue to footage of him singing the "rock" version of "Ice, Ice Baby." It's even funnier than footage of him explaining the exact difference between his riff and the "Under Pressure" riff.
What's sad is just how many people have sued him to have their name added to the credits on his work. Yeah, plagiarism sucks ass, but if I ever saw "And a big Thank-U to LexyBitch for all her hard work" on a Vanilla Ice album, I would hire a lawyer to kill him.
Have I got just the album for you!
"Rob Zombie Chants in Ecclesiastical Latin." Unfortunately, it's not available in any stores. Here's an interesting point to ponder, though: anything you see in a store labelled "As Seen On TV" is probably advertised with the line "Not Available In Any Stores!" | |
Botman wrote:
I found that Shapeshifter only gives me good scores when I'm listing to Limb Bizkit. Damn, I knew I got that code wrong! It's supposed to give you really bad scores when listening to them, but I don't have any of their CDs to test it with. Seriously, though... As a very bad amateur musician, I'm very picky about what I listen to. I like a wide variety of genres, but only certain things within each one. The most popular genre in my collection is guitar rock, preferably instrumental. Take away the lyrics and you either have a really boring crappy piece of music or a well-crafted piece that stands on its own musical merits. Without lyrics and massive marketing, I contend that the vast majority of popular music would suck even more than it already does (but still not as much as my crap), so much that people would wake up and stop listening to it. But I'm getting off on a tangent here. I like well-done instrumental music. Vocals and lyrics are the least important thing to me in music. That said, here are a few artists/groups that top my list of good stuff: Joe Satriani, Aerosmith (preferably older), Van Halen (ditto), Stevie Ray Vaughan, U2 (older), Rush, Steve Vai, Gary Hoey, Kenny Wayne Shepherd, Eric Johnson, Brian Setzer Orchestra, Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Wynton Marsalis, Beethoven, Mussorgsky, Brahms, and a lot more. I've always found it fascinating that there is so much great music out there - most of which I probably have yet to discover, and yet for every good piece of music, there are nearly an infinite number of bad pieces that are probably more popular. That's not to say that I'm an elitist or believe that somehow my taste in music is superior to anyone else's. I simply like what sounds good to me and moves me - most people will probably recognize my music for the utter crap that it is. As for listening to music while coding, I don't do that much. Problem is, music is so important to me that it's much more than just something to have in the background. I have a theory that the majority of non-musically-inclined people never really listen to their music. I mean sit down, put on a good pair of headphones, tune out all distractions, and really listen to the music, concentrating on nothing else. I think that most people have music on as background. They listen to whatever sounds "good" to them on a relatively superficial level and never really delve deeper into it than that. Again, I'm not trying to have a "holier than thou" attitude, just a theory based on my observations. My problem is that I find it difficult to tune music out and concentrate on something else. Although I do have certain things that I find are good for "background" listening (The Crystal Method's Vegas album comes to mind - it also inspired the ShapeShifter music), most music catches and demands more of my conscious attention than I want to give it when I'm working on something else. Thus if you look at what's been playing on my stereo lately, you won't find that I've listened to much recently. I just haven't had the time to sit down and really listen, so except for the occasional super-random play, I just have the TV on or something while doing things. The really bad part about this is when bad music is on, I find it difficult to tune out. Drives me nuts. And speaking of driving, I do tend to listen to music when I drive. It's probably a very bad habit for me, but I find that since driving generally doesn't take much conscious thought (admit it, most of the time you're driving, you're on autopilot), so I can be thinking about the music at the same time. Enough rambling. Does anyone else think this way about music, or am I just a freak? Well, I guess those aren't necessarily mutually exclusive... | |
Air Mapster wrote:
The really bad part about this is when bad music is on, I find it difficult to tune out. Drives me nuts. And speaking of driving, I do tend to listen to music when I drive. It's probably a very bad habit for me, but I find that since driving generally doesn't take much conscious thought (admit it, most of the time you're driving, you're on autopilot), so I can be thinking about the music at the same time. Actually it seems that although we don't share the same tastes, we share the same views on overall music listening. I too think a lot of people approach music as a background thing, but I much prefer to sit down and listen to music, tuning out all else. I too have the same problem dealing with bad music. This problem reached a head early last year (late '99-early 2000 was a downright horrible music year), when my car had only a radio and no tape/CD player, and with 7 station presents to choose from I still couldn't find anything but crap to listen to. And I mean crap so bad that I'd scream bloody murder when it came on. I became a rabid channel-changer over the few years I drove that car, and had to deal with frustrating "bad music weeks", and worse, stretches of about 3 weeks or so when absolutely nothing good but maybe--if I was lucky--something tolerable would be on. So when that car started approaching death, I bought a new one that had a CD player. Lummox JR | |
What do you class say Limb Bizkit (my fav. band) as? Cause unlike alot of try hard bands emerging today, some bands (like LB) are actually "real", if that makes sence. Like, they are more than just an image on the band wagon. *yawn* morning all (actually it's 3pm and I've only just gotten up). If I could be bothered using my scanner I'd just upload an artical with Fred Durst that pretty much dispells everything you said about Limb Bizkit (except Dursts voice, though I personally like it). So if you wanna go find a copy Rolling Stone magazine (issue 584), you can read it for yourself. I had a look on their website, but the artical isn't there (http://rollingstoneweb.com). | |
This was not a serious question? Does that mean I shouldn't reply?
LexyBitch wrote: ...what kind of music does everyone like to listen to? Is there a particular song, group, or style that you find makes good background when you're coding or playing video games? Or do you just turn on the TV and let that run? I've always found it hard to concentrate with noise in the background. Very rarely do I turn on music or the TV while I work. But I like to listen to... uh... oldies, some folk, some rock, and classical choral pieces. I have "The Hammered Dulcimer" by Bill Spence with Fennig's All-Stars, whoever they are and some guitar instrumental cds, and Ani Difranco, and the best of Johnny Rivers. I like cajun and zydeco too but I don't have any cds. Z | |
Botman wrote:
If I could be bothered using my scanner I'd just upload an artical with Fred Durst that pretty much dispells everything you said about Limb Bizkit (except Dursts voice, though I personally like it). Well, without reading the article, I can at least comment to this extent: There's nothing it could possibly say to dispell either my comment or AbyssDragon's. You see, it doesn't matter how intelligent or lucid Fred Durst is, or how much he may think his band is unique, or what he has to say. The simple fact is that their music does come off with an excessively angry tone we've all heard before, does have a lot of the genre's typical elements, and does (at least in some cases) have the kind of obnoxious self-glorifying "rap"-type lyrics heard in other songs. Whether Mr. Durst himself thinks otherwise or not is irrelevant. And if his opinion is that his band is all these things, that he's fitting a stereotype to make an artistic statement, that still doesn't discredit any of what was said. The point stands either way. None of this is to say, however, that it's somehow utterly tasteless to like the music of Limp Bizkit. If you like their music, hey, that's great. But one can like a band and their music without that music being terribly unique. There's no stigma to liking a group that just happens to be like a lot of other groups (albeit more famous than most). Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Botman wrote: Right, later tonight I'll scan the artical and post it. Limb Bizkits music isn't about hating etc and all that bs about critic bashing, and "rape rock" is nonsence. As will be explained. Did you know Fred Durst has had to resort to filiming all his interviews as hes had it several times where the interviewer has then made stuff up about what Durst said, so Durst now needs to tape things for evidence. No wonder hes angry. =) Anyway,s wait for the artical. | |
This is the only Rolling Stone article I can find about Fred Durst. In it, he explains why Limp Bizkit shouldn't be criticized with such insightful comments as:
"I read so much horsesh*t in magazines and see so many bullsh*t reports on every source of media that I can't believe people are so adamant about dogging Limp Bizkit." Hopefully thats not the article you mentioned. Anyway, in case I didn't make it clear.. I don't mind that you like Limp Bizkit, I just find them excessively similar to all of the other rap-rock bands out there, and therefore boring. Thats not a bad thing in and of itself.. you might find a lot of the music I listen to boring. I also dislike the way mainstream rock music (including Limp Bizkit) represent anger only by yelling, and lyrics that sound like surly teenagers. My best example of this is from a Godsmack song, which contains the line "Shut up and go away!".. I don't mind angry music--a good portion of the music I enjoy is angry--but I think theres a right way to portray anger, and a wrong way... and thats definately the wrong way. -AbyssDragon | |
Botman wrote:
Right, later tonight I'll scan the artical and post it. Limb Bizkits music isn't about hating etc and all that bs about critic bashing, and "rape rock" is nonsence. As will be explained. Well, I don't recall bringing up any phrase like "rape rock", unless that's a typo on your part. But their music does have a lot of yelling, some complaining about critics (not necessarily bashing them), and so on. As I said, whether Fred Durst actually acknowledges that this content is in his songs--or why--is irrelevant. Did you know Fred Durst has had to resort to filiming all his interviews as hes had it several times where the interviewer has then made stuff up about what Durst said, so Durst now needs to tape things for evidence. No wonder hes angry. =) All of which has no bearing on what either AbyssDragon or I said, since we weren't referring to whether he was misquoted in any interviews. (It does not, however, surprise me to hear he's been misquoted before. Drastic, stupid misquotes are apparently more common in music industry publications than fake breasts in their interviewees.) No doubt the article will shed some interesting light on how Fred Durst views Limp Bizkit, but for all it really matters he could call his music easy-listening or folk. In fact I'm not sure anyone could refute the claim we made except for a columnist exceptionally well-versed in Limp Bizkit's particular sub-genre who was familiar with all similar bands and could draw comparisons in their musical styles. The value of that rebuttal would then hinge on the qualifications of that writer to hit upon the differences between bands, and on whether those differences could be considered major to anyone outside the sub-genre, or merely superficial. Lummox JR | |
AbyssDragon wrote:
This is the only Rolling Stone article I can find about Fred Durst. In it, he explains why Limp Bizkit shouldn't be criticized with such insightful comments as: Ok, I know for a fact thres a whole list of them there. But no, it's not the artical I'm talking about. | |
All I'm saying is that your judging something you don't even undwerstand, and by the comments yourve made, you havnt even tried to understand it.
| |
I can direct you to VH1 footage of Vanilla Ice explaining how misunderstood he is, how his riff is nothing like Bowie's, and how he's been maligned by the media.
What does that prove? | |
LexyBitch wrote:
I can direct you to VH1 footage of Vanilla Ice explaining how misunderstood he is, how his riff is nothing like Bowie's, and how he's been maligned by the media. Vanilla Ice is stupid? | |
Now THATS a long playlist...wish I even had that many mp3s :(
Send it to me sometime, the music im listening to is starting to get overly repetetive and thats starting to affect my coding and making me too tired :( Alathon | |
Botman wrote:
LexyBitch wrote: Better yet, He's a lier. | |
Botman wrote:
All I'm saying is that your judging something you don't even undwerstand, and by the comments yourve made, you havnt even tried to understand it. I'm judging the band, not the article. I have not read the article and thus would be a fool to comment on it. However, my point still stands: There's nothing the article could say that would refute my point. Because you see, it doesn't matter what Fred Durst thinks of Limp Bizkit, but rather what it is. The assessment made by AbyssDragon and myself is neither uncommon nor unfair, and whether Fred Durst agrees with it or not is irrelevant. Oasis, for example, is still under the delusion that they're the Beatles of this generation; the fact that they think so doesn't make them right. Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Botman wrote: But you can't fairly say what Limb Bizkit is without first understanding them. What I mean by that, is, like you said, it's commonly though that Limb Bizkit is some angy, teenybopper band (I'm not ging to post the artical, it would be too much of a hassle to scan and upload, and you dont care what Durst has to say). Their music does have a deeper meaning to it, its just overlooked by many, mostly their critics. Heck, there's even some humour to some of their work (though it's not exactly 'refined' or anything). Everyone is obviously allowed to think what they want, and it's fine by me if you don't like Limb Bizkit. I just think they are hard done by. Especially since, for a long time I absolutely dispised Limb Bizkit, and Rammstein for that matter. I mean, I really hated these bands. Now they are my favourites. I didn't even bother listening to most of their music, I simply wasn't willing to even give them a chance because of what I thought they were like/about. Then again, I used to be against drinking and drugs, so much for that lol. Needless to say, I've changed considerably over the last few years. | |
Botman wrote:
Lummox JR wrote: ...it's commonly though that Limb Bizkit is some angy, teenybopper band... Their music does have a deeper meaning to it, its just overlooked by many, mostly their critics... I can't think of any "angry" bands that don't claim their music has a deeper meaning to it, some people just don't appreciate the way they choose to express it. It's impossible to create real art unless it means something to the artist. | |
I like just about any music, except country. I got quite enough of it growing up. I don't care for a lot of rap either, but I judge it on a case by case basis rather than genre. I listen to anything from Gregorian Chants to Rob Zombie, as the mood strikes.