Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As an aside; That was a bit of a hefty post, so from now on I'm going to keep it on point also.Rush Vs Journey; Instrumental talent, are the only points I'll reply to.
-AC
Yeah. I was told that you pretty much don't change your mind, so I'm not going to try it. However, for the sake of argument, tomorrow, I'm going to be offering a rebuttle to it.
I'll be pointing them out to you, tomorrow. 😉
'Night.
Originally posted by Gideon
Yeah. I was told that you pretty much don't change your mind, so I'm not going to try it. However, for the sake of argument, tomorrow, I'm going to be offering a rebuttle to it.I'll be pointing them out to you, tomorrow. 😉
'Night.
I won't change my mind cos I have facts backing me up, and I'm more than willing to continue this. My point was to keep this thread clean and make the posts meaningful if they have to be lengthy.
So as far as my post goes, feel free to ignore anything that isn't to do with Rush or Journey, because that's who it's about.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Pardon? I like The Beatles, but just because I'm not tonguing their collective anii doesn't mean I am anti-Beatles.He isn't factually great unless you can prove beyond all deniability and preference that he is. You can't, it's subjective. We're discussing musicianship, not preference. No preference is factual.
which is why i specified that despite your personal preference, or at least your proffered music board persona preference, paul mccartney is "factually" untouchable. regardless of your ideas held or put forth, can you really deny that mccartney has written some of the most inscrutable songs in recorder music history? that his harmony's are solid, that his bass melodies are both complex and creatively important?
Seriously, to deny the talent of sir Paul Macartney, one of the best and most important music artist ever, its just ignorant. He was great, he is great and he will be great.
I dont like people like iron maiden, metallica or guns and roses, but i dont deny their talent. One thing is dont like a thing and the other is say lies and being a musical ignorant.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Seriously, to deny the talent of sir Paul Macartney, one of the best and most important music artist ever, its just ignorant. He was great, he is great and he will be great.I dont like people like iron maiden, metallica or guns and roses, but i dont deny their talent. One thing is dont like a thing and the other is say lies and being a musical ignorant.
Why don't you just ask to fellate the man?
I'm not denying his talent as a bass player, which is decent, I'm saying it's stupid to say he's factually an amazing songwriter. It's not factual, it's preference.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why don't you just ask to fellate the man?I'm not denying his talent as a bass player, which is decent, I'm saying it's stupid to say he's factually an amazing songwriter. It's not factual, it's preference.
-AC
Ill do it when you'll do the same with mike patton.
What is stupid is to deny his talent as a songwriter. Do you want a proof? heard his songs, nothing more. Enough proof of his amazing talent as a songwriter.
But if you can keep the preference theory, all the art is subjetive and its all about preference. But the talent is the talent, you have it or you havent it. And Paul has it for sure, and its clear.
Originally posted by bakerboy
Ill do it when you'll do the same with mike patton.What is stupid is to deny his talent as a songwriter. Do you want a proof? heard his songs, nothing more. Enough proof of his amazing talent as a songwriter.
But if you can keep the preference theory, all the art is subjetive and its all about preference. But the talent is the talent, you have it or you havent it. And Paul has it for sure, and its clear.
There are a couple of people I would put alongside Mike Patton, you act as if nobody is worthy of polishing The Beatles shoes. Nothing I've said about Patton is false, you give The Beatles false accolades.
Second, that's all you can say. "Hear his songs and deny it if you're stupid.". It's not a fact that he's an amazing songwriter, it's pure opinion and THAT is a fact.
-AC
The problem is this, AC: what you have described as "fact", for the most part, has only been an interpretation of your opinion only. I want to see some solid proof that supports your theory that Perry > Lee and that Lifeson > Schon. I've offered you accounts of when Sammy Hagar and David Lee Roth have both stated that Schon can play as good as Eddie Van Halen (whom we both agree to be better than Lifeson), and what was your response? "No, he can't". You lack the authority to make such a claim. For one, Hagar has worked with both Neal and Eddie. You have not. Secondly, Hagar is an extremely successful musician who can accurately gauge the skill of another musician. You are not. You and I are not experts - so we can't sit here and pass off our assessments as fact without proper support.
All you've done, essentially, is sit here and attempt to knock out these accounts with some of your own opinions - and then you proclaim them as fact. This clearly is not the case; it isn't your call.
You also attempt to knock the whole "child prodigy" issue, which is rather sad, in my opinion. Being a child prodigy, especially musically speaking, is a rather big deal. Beethoven and Mozart were child prodigies, and yet I don't see critics or otherwise attempting to cheapen such an achievement. Schon was fourteen when he was considered good enough to play, professionally, for Carlos Santana and Eric Clapton. Lifeson can't pull anything like that to his name, and for you to even imply otherwise begs the question - where has Lifeson proved his skills like that?
So, instead of saying "No" or "That means nothing" or "They aren't factually talented" like a broken record, back up your words.
On the subject of Steve Perry vs. Geddy Lee, you proclaimed that Lee is good "because he sings in extremely high register". You then claimed to have listened to a lot of Journey before. What makes me doubt that is the obvious fact that Perry, too, sings in extremely high vocal register - so that ability is not unique to just Lee alone. You then went on to claim that Lee has the "better range". He doesn't. The longer range is widely considered to be the "better range". Geddy Lee does not have it.
Perry was able to sing outrageously high pitched notes throughout the '70s and early '80s. Listen to songs such as "Wheel in the Sky", "Somethin' to Hide", "Mother, Father", "Lay it Down", and "I'm Cryin'". These are but a handful of examples of Perry's ability to hit and maintain upper register vocals effortlessly.
Then, in 1983, Journey decided to run down a new venue with Frontiers - in a more edged, hard rock feel. For this, Perry intentionally lowered his register to sing baritone and with a much, much rougher edge. For songs like that, see "Separate Ways", "Chain Reaction", "Edge of the Blade", "Back Talk", and "Faithfully".
When has Geddy Lee offered such an arsenal of vocal hits? Answer: he hasn't. Which is why you're not going to hear of many celebrities and professional singers inspired or fans of his voice. Perry's got countless fans and countless followers.
Perry's got a better range than Lee. He's got more control. He's certainly had more influence as a singer. Lee is not the more technical or "better" singer on paper.
Originally posted by bakerboySongwriting ability can never be factual, since music is subjective. Stop trying to pass your narrow opinions off as fact.
Paul Macartney is one of the greatest musical artists ever. Great songwritter, great bassist, great piano player, etc. One of the most complete musical artistis of all time, to say the oppossite is just bullshit.
Originally posted by Gideon
The problem is this, AC: what you have described as "fact", for the most part, has only been an interpretation of your opinion only. I want to see some solid proof that supports your theory that Perry > Lee and that Lifeson > Schon.
I don't think Perry is better than Lee as a singer, not sure why you said that.
Your proof of Schon being better is what? That he was amazing at 14. What relevance does that have to today? He's highly regarded, fine. Nobody is contesting this. What I'm trying to figure out is why you're harping on an irrelevant point. Forget his age and how good he WAS at 14, fast forward to when he was an adult. What happened? He got overshadowed by better guitarists.
He played music that, CREATIVELY, hit a lot of chords (N.P.I) with people, but we're not discussing creativity, we're discussing ability.
Originally posted by Gideon
I've offered you accounts of when Sammy Hagar and David Lee Roth have both stated that Schon can play as good as Eddie Van Halen (whom we both agree to be better than Lifeson), and what was your response? "No, he can't". You lack the authority to make such a claim. For one, Hagar has worked with both Neal and Eddie. You have not. Secondly, Hagar is an extremely successful musician who can accurately gauge the skill of another musician. You are not. You and I are not experts - so we can't sit here and pass off our assessments as fact without proper support.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULEBSxP725w
That's why Eddie Van Halen is better.
Another reason is how he invented a few techniques that are still used prominently today. Another reason would be the fact that when he came through, he overshadowed Neal Schon himself.
"The late-1970s arrival of Eddie Van Halen quickly eclipsed Schon's bravado, giving rise to a new era of the technically facile rock guitar virtuoso.".
Furthermore, Hagar can play guitar, he's not a masterful player. Masterful players have actually hailed Van Halen as the best ever. I disagree, but he's certainly better than Schon.
"Before the release of Van Halen's eponymous first album, Van Halen would often play solos and his more complex riffs with his back to the live audience. This was done at the advice of his bandmates to prevent any guitar players from stealing his style and technique before the album came out in 1978.".
Schon's just a reasonably regarded guitarist. Everything about Eddie Van Halen right down to his tuning and set up is legendary and innovative.
Originally posted by Gideon
All you've done, essentially, is sit here and attempt to knock out these accounts with some of your own opinions - and then you proclaim them as fact. This clearly is not the case; it isn't your call.
What have you done, though? Nothing besides "He was a 14 year old prodigy.". I've offered up a lot more than you have.
Originally posted by Gideon
You also attempt to knock the whole "child prodigy" issue, which is rather sad, in my opinion. Being a child prodigy, especially musically speaking, is a rather big deal. Beethoven and Mozart were child prodigies, and yet I don't see critics or otherwise attempting to cheapen such an achievement.
You don't see critics overlooking the music they made in favour of their age either. People often forget how young Hendrix was because his music was so good.
If all you can do is say Schon was madly regarded as great when he was 14, then you're not saying much. Good luck to the man, having such talent at a young age is brilliant, but we're not discussing that. There's more to the debate.
Originally posted by Gideon
Schon was fourteen when he was considered good enough to play, professionally, for Carlos Santana and Eric Clapton.
Polly, wanna cracker?
Originally posted by Gideon
Lifeson can't pull anything like that to his name, and for you to even imply otherwise begs the question - where has Lifeson proved his skills like that?
What? Where on Earth did I say Lifeson was a child prodigy? I simply said he is the better guitarist. YOU are the one who is making this 14 year old issue the focus of your debate.
Originally posted by Gideon
So, instead of saying "No" or "That means nothing" or "They aren't factually talented" like a broken record, back up your words.
The day you stop using his irrelevant age is the day I'll stop telling you it means nothing. It means nothing to this debate, because we're not discussing who was the better child prodigy, we're discussing who the better guitarist is.
Originally posted by Gideon
On the subject of Steve Perry vs. Geddy Lee, you proclaimed that Lee is good "because he sings in extremely high register". You then claimed to have listened to a lot of Journey before. What makes me doubt that is the obvious fact that Perry, too, sings in extremely high vocal register - so that ability is not unique to just Lee alone. You then went on to claim that Lee has the "better range". He doesn't. The longer range is widely considered to be the "better range". Geddy Lee does not have it.
I never said it was unique to Lee, I said he simply does it better and like a hypocrite, all you do is say "He doesn't.".
The Temples of Syrinx has Geddy Lee singing not only in high range, but doing so consistently and throughout, he performs it to this day. Steve Perry has noticeably declined.
Originally posted by Gideon
Perry was able to sing outrageously high pitched notes throughout the '70s and early '80s. Listen to songs such as "Wheel in the Sky", "Somethin' to Hide", "Mother, Father", "Lay it Down", and "I'm Cryin'". These are but a handful of examples of Perry's ability to hit and maintain upper register vocals effortlessly.
I've heard those songs, I'm not saying the man can't sing, I'm saying he's not a better singer than Geddy Lee.
George Fisher of Cannibal Corpse can do insanely long vocal show offs, harsh ones, but the fact that he's shit means that it doesn't count for anything.
Originally posted by Gideon
Then, in 1983, Journey decided to run down a new venue with Frontiers - in a more edged, hard rock feel. For this, Perry intentionally lowered his register to sing baritone and with a much, much rougher edge. For songs like that, see "Separate Ways", "Chain Reaction", "Edge of the Blade", "Back Talk", and "Faithfully".
I know these songs, you're not telling me anything I'm unaware of. You are just too naive to believe that someone could know about Journey and still not like them or regard them higher than Rush, woe betide.
So what's your assumption? Because Geddy Lee hasn't done that, he can't?
Originally posted by Gideon
When has Geddy Lee offered such an arsenal of vocal hits? Answer: he hasn't.
He hasn't used them, doesn't mean he can't. Given the ability of the man, I don't think you should be assuming anything.
Originally posted by Gideon
Which is why you're not going to hear of many celebrities and professional singers inspired or fans of his voice. Perry's got countless fans and countless followers.
Geddy Lee's voice is an acquired taste. You love it or hate it, but the fact that it's technically brilliant is undeniable.
Steve Perry is an accessible singer, he's a safe vocalist. I'm not knocking him for that, I'm just telling the truth. He hardly sounded unique.
Originally posted by Gideon
Perry's got a better range than Lee. He's got more control. He's certainly had more influence as a singer. Lee is not the more technical or "better" singer on paper.
Who cares about paper? Freddie Mercury, on paper, had a four octave range. That's Kate Bush territory. He never used it because he couldn't do so, so I'm not going to regard him in the same way as I do Kate Bush, who does use it.
Perry being varied doesn't mean he's using everything he has, and as I've said, he's noticeably decreased. Lee hasn't.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The Temples of Syrinx has Geddy Lee singing not only in high range, but doing so consistently and throughout, he performs it to this day. Steve Perry has noticeably declined.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I've heard those songs, I'm not saying the man can't sing, I'm saying he's not a better singer than Geddy Lee.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He hasn't used them, doesn't mean he can't. Given the ability of the man, I don't think you should be assuming anything.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Geddy Lee's voice is an acquired taste. You love it or hate it, but the fact that it's technically brilliant is undeniable.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Steve Perry is an accessible singer, he's a safe vocalist. I'm not knocking him for that, I'm just telling the truth. He hardly sounded unique.
Anyways here is a video of Perry singing Mother, Father live.
I'll be back later. In the meantime, listen to some Schon:
http://www.soulsirkus.com/SS%20Samplers/My%20Sanctuary.mp3
(the guitar solo is near the end of this clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwZJ5HgcLss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSh5nJK88cw
(Neal performing the Star Spangled Banner)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd_-7qed0vE