|
|
Post by birdwhistle on Jun 15, 2007 9:46:34 GMT
(Note: totally done affectionately. Just came from me having to make this face :-\ all the time.)
|
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Jun 15, 2007 9:46:36 GMT
i hate ' and " so much right now. It's been used too often.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombland on Jun 15, 2007 9:48:08 GMT
i hate ' and " so much right now. It's been used too often. Pfft. It's a good connective |
|
|
|
Post by tesla on Jun 15, 2007 9:48:48 GMT
My novel posts must have annoyed you very much, Sophie... ):
|
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Jun 15, 2007 9:49:26 GMT
i hate ' and " so much right now. It's been used too often. Pfft. It's a good connective you're a good "connective" |
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jun 15, 2007 9:49:33 GMT
"I think this." "I don't appreciate the terminology with which you stated your thoughts." "Oh yeah? Well I don't appreciate the terminology with which you stated YOUR fucking thoughts." "Don't you swear at me, mister. I was only saying my opinion in a calm way. You know, sometimes I think you have it in for me." "I don't have it in for you! You're just talking a load of bollocks!" "I don't know about that. It seems you are always jumping to conclusions, taking things I say the wrong way..." "What do you mean, 'jumping to conclusions'? What do you mean, 'things'? What do you mean, 'the'?!" "Maybe we should just make a truce for the benefit of the board. Just stop it here, because we're never going to agree with each other. This feud has gone on too long." "THERE IS NO FUCKING FEUD! STOP GETTING FUCKING UPSET AT MY RATIONAL, NEUTRAL, POLITELY-PHRASED ARGUMENT, YOU BIG WANKER!" "Fine. Fine. I'm in too much agony. I'm leaving the board." "Good riddance. I think I'll mock you and then attempt the same thing a few months later. Not that I like the internet or anything, or it'll be in any way difficult for me, or that I like any of you." "I'm back." "Me too." "I think this." "You think THAT?!" ... and on it goes. That was maddeningly spot on. Writing satire about minor forum spats? I salute you. |
|
|
|
Post by sophie on Jun 15, 2007 9:50:27 GMT
My novel posts must have annoyed you very much, Sophie... ): no, not at all. just their use of it in a debate is so patronising. |
|
|
|
Post by lltoastll on Jun 15, 2007 13:12:02 GMT
But what about the GY!BE way of having a track on an album but splitting it into several sections (such as East Hastings is split into "Nothing's alrite in our life/dead flag blues reprise" "the sad mafioso" "drugs in tokyo" and "black helicopter"). Any optinions on that? It's a very good idea. Providence for example is 23 minutes long, i think, and it's hard to talk about it when you just say "providence" that's my favourite album by them, and I always view it to be one complete piece, which tells a story about the journey along the train tracks. Do you actually have the LP? if you do, how does your flattened penny look? I kind of wish I had one of the first presses because the image on the front of the LP is awesome and completely different from what I have. |
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Jun 15, 2007 15:07:45 GMT
Useless trivia time: The "three-minute (pop) song" came about due to the constraints of technology at the dawn of recorded sound; the original gramaphone records could only hold around three minutes worth of information.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombland on Jun 16, 2007 12:40:20 GMT
That's a good fact! I did not know that.
I just went looking for my copy. Can't find it. Rubbish...
|
|
|
|
Post by oldgregg on Jun 16, 2007 16:27:47 GMT
Useless trivia time: The "three-minute (pop) song" came about due to the constraints of technology at the dawn of recorded sound; the original gramaphone records could only hold around three minutes worth of information. Isn't there like a set "formula" to successful pop music too, that people like Kylie employ their song writers to use as a guaranteed number 1? Like how the song should never be too long otherwise the final chorus gets talked over when it's played on the radio, and therefore isn't as effective. Apparently there's a whole deep psychological thing to song writing in order to make sure a song is popular. |
|
|
|
Post by fabbit on Jun 16, 2007 18:15:59 GMT
actually there is.
it's pretty weird.
there's this way that you can tweak songs that radios do, i guess it has something to do with the space between the highest and lowest sound, and it makes them sound better to people. but if it's too close, it sounds bad and you don't want to listen to it even if the song is your favorite.
have you ever looked at those books "how to write a hit song?" or something to that effect? well it's practically this forumla. crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by iwasonceaboy on Jun 16, 2007 20:26:20 GMT
Philip Glass: 'Music With Changing Part' = 1:01:40
It is one very long continous piece of music, despite its 'Parts'- its rather difficult to distinguish where one ends and another begins. Have I thrown a spanner in the works?
I usually only listen to it for a long train journey- Minimalism was just made for the tracks and pistons.
x.Sebra.x
|
|
|
|
Post by tombland on Jun 16, 2007 20:29:23 GMT
The 1 hour mark was trounced quite a way back. My longest is an 88minute Acid Mothers Temple track. And that was beaten by Melba, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karanina on Jun 16, 2007 21:21:26 GMT
I'm boring and I like songs that aren't too short or too long. I think the longest song I have that I can actually sit through the entire thing and not wish for the end to hurry up is "Hurricane" by Bob Dylan, which is 8:32, I think, and my favorite short song is probably Lupen Crook's "Junk 'n' Jubilee" which is 1:53.
Hmm. Interesting.
|
|
