new transposer      circle of 5ths    wap


Well Isn't this something...

Music and Bands
Kodi666  
12 Sep 2008 20:38 | Quote
Joined: 07 Sep 2008
Canada
Karma
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2008/09/12/nikki_sixx_blasts_the_state_of_rock_n_ro

Your thoughts?
TheAmericanBrit  
12 Sep 2008 20:54 | Quote
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
United States
Karma: 1
Like he has any room to talk. Motley Crue sucked, and he sucked even more.
Veqq  
12 Sep 2008 21:24 | Quote
Joined: 18 May 2008
United States
Lessons: 2
Licks: 5
Karma: 1
I agree totally, but it's not anything new... We've all known the jonus brothers and Millie Cyris sucked...
baudelaire  
12 Sep 2008 21:46 | Quote
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Brazil
Karma: 2
he has plenty of room to talk... whether or not you LIKED motley crue, they were most DEFINITELY rock and roll. and more talented then these disney pop queers, which is saying something about how much they suck.

it's not rock and roll if there aren't preachers telling people that it's the devils music, and a culture of... well, sex, drugs, and rock and roll surrounding it.
Crunch  
12 Sep 2008 22:16 | Quote
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
United States
Karma: 3
Is anyone else just a little surprised Nikki Sixx went into a Barnes & Noble?
TheAmericanBrit  
12 Sep 2008 22:20 | Quote
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
United States
Karma: 1
They were not rock n roll, they were Gay L.A Metal.
baudelaire  
12 Sep 2008 22:24 | Quote
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Brazil
Karma: 2
they were the DEFINITION of rock an roll, if not the best rock band. they did tons of drugs, drank lots of liquor, fucked lots of girls, sang amount and participated in depraved excess, and got called the devil. that's pretty much rock and roll in a nutshell.

crunch, that is sort of funny. he would have looked a little out of place.
TheAmericanBrit  
12 Sep 2008 22:28 | Quote
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
United States
Karma: 1
That's not what Rock N Roll is about, idiot.

AC/DC was Rock N Roll, Led Zeppelin was Rock N Roll, The Who was Rock N Roll.

Crue was just a bunch of attention whores who thought they were edgy.

CTown  
13 Sep 2008 00:06 | Quote
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
United States
Licks: 1
Karma: 1
Ever see that movie Airheads? "I AM Rock n Roll...I'm out there living it...(don't remember any more)"

I think you both are arguing the same point, but from opposite sides of the spectrum... Let's not look at who sucks (I think it's clear that nobody cares for the Jonas Brothers); rather how messed up the record company's are now that they try to market pop as Rock n Roll. Granted we all have our different categories for musicians (Me: AC/DC, Crue.. Metal; Led Zep...Classic Rock; Buddy Holly, Elvis, Beatles, Big Bopper...Rock N Roll) and it's all personal opinion.
baudelaire  
13 Sep 2008 00:40 | Quote
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Brazil
Karma: 2
thats EXACTLY what rock and roll is about. if not that... then what?

whether or not you like motley crue, they were most certainly a rock band.
TheAmericanBrit  
13 Sep 2008 00:44 | Quote
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
United States
Karma: 1
Rock N Roll is about the music, not about being a douchebag.

Also, musically, they were abysmal.

You seem to think it's all about the clothes or drinking. It's not about the music to you - it's about the image.

And if you want an extreme image, go listen to Marilyn Manson and all that, cause that's obviously ALL you care about.
baudelaire  
13 Sep 2008 02:33 | Quote
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Brazil
Karma: 2
no, i don't seem to think that. the conclusions you just drew were beyond ridiculous. you either don't have a understanding of what rock and roll at it's heart really is, or you take what you personally want and simply transpose that onto what seems appealing - rock and roll.

musically, 99% of ALL rock and roll is abysmal. simple, uncreative, and repetitive.

rock and roll was never just about "the music". otherwise, it might have been something that wasn't 99% power chords and pentatonics. rock and roll is as much about partying and that lifestyle as it is 'the music'. which is why i don't like rock and roll.
sixtiesguy  
13 Sep 2008 04:01 | Quote
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
United Kingdom
Karma: 1
So why are all of us 'rock & rollers' busting our knuckles trying to play better if it's only about image, and why is someone as intellectually superior as yourself even bothering to give us the benefit of your wisdom. Whoops so sorry, new boy stepping over the line here!
Empirism  
13 Sep 2008 04:01 | Quote
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Finland
Lessons: 4
Karma: 35
Well, I must put here an my opinion what is rock 'n roll, if we talk with "consepts" here. AC/DC is not rock 'n roll, its hard rock. Mötley Crue is not rock n' roll its considered as Glam rock with little hard rock elements on it. Well, ive growd up with listening much of Mötley Crue and definately liked it.

In Consept of rock 'n roll means 50' to 60' rock like Stray Cats, Chuck Berry, Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis. First considerable Rock 'n Roll song was Haley and the comets - rock around the clock in somewhere 1955.

Rock n' roll was first subgenre of rock that depart from rythm n' blues in around 1950 so Möthley Crue or Ac/Dc as well as Led Zeppelin and stuff is not rock 'n roll.

when we talk with consepts and definitions.

Cheers!
Empirism

Edit.
@Baud

when talking 'bout creativity in rock 'n roll and when you say that its simple without creativity. Chuck Berry was one of the big names that develop it much how we know "Rock n' Roll" is, there needed an much of an creativity and vision as well as an spirit. And ill definately think that Chuck Berry was technically and musicially better musician and guitarist that we both never be.
JazzMaverick  
13 Sep 2008 09:03 | Quote
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
United Kingdom
Lessons: 24
Licks: 37
Karma: 47
Moderator
I would say the Rock'n'Roll is all the older stuff around the time Empirism said. When it was Mods and Rockers. I don't think the stuff now-a-days should be considered Rock'n'Roll when they're not doing what the real meaning of Rock'n'Roll was. Like the Sex Pistols, "God save the Queen!"

I do think image had A LOT to do with it's meaning though. That's pretty much what set it.
baudelaire  
13 Sep 2008 12:34 | Quote
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Brazil
Karma: 2
in the same cadre as motley crue, is what i mean; 80's era rock and roll.
JazzMaverick  
13 Sep 2008 13:35 | Quote
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
United Kingdom
Lessons: 24
Licks: 37
Karma: 47
Moderator
Yeah, that's true. I get why people want to be called Rock'n'Roll. But they couldn't live up to those bands and artists because in this day and age pratically everything's illegal.
Crunch  
13 Sep 2008 14:56 | Quote
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
United States
Karma: 3
I would definitely call Motley Crue a "Rock" band, and definitely not the "Rock 'n Roll" of the 50's and early 60's. They played their instruments in a very rock style, partied like rockers, did drugs like rockers, and banged lots of hot chicks. And face it, their lifestyle and image does contribute to their rockiness.

Girls!Girls!Girls! I mean, c'mon, that isn't anything if it isn't rock n' roll (in the broad sense, which is how I normally use it).
JazzMaverick  
13 Sep 2008 15:03 | Quote
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
United Kingdom
Lessons: 24
Licks: 37
Karma: 47
Moderator
Banging girls is definitely Rock'n'Roll, but everyone in every genre does it now, along with drugs.

QUESTION!

What's your opinion on drugs? Almost every Jazz artist took drugs, Bird is a great example, also John McLaughin (took acid) and I have so much respect for his creativity. But I'm soooo curious if it opens their minds and allows them to see more and be more creative. Don't worry, I'm not encouraging anyone to take them, it fucks up your mind in the long run. Be good.
Empirism  
13 Sep 2008 15:34 | Quote
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Finland
Lessons: 4
Karma: 35
Kids, dont try drugs. Even what im goin to tell. Its very harmful if you dont know what you are doing and even then.

First. We must put drugs to two categories. Synthetic drugs and psychedelics.

Psychedelics usually come from nature with only exeption of LSD that though is an developed from mould.

in 70' they used a lot acid along with weed to "expand their minds" that were big part of birth of hippy movement started at San Fransisco.

Ive did them, and they can lead you to states of mind and being that many not even can imagine, but its illusion. Not real. Why it affect to creativity then? Its because those force you out of chains of habits and everything else that bonds your mind to "normal thinking".

Many of psychedelics are hard to handle if oneself is not mentally "healthy". If you take them with bad mood, thats not good thing.

Heroin, smoked crack and some other needle shit have nothing to do with creativity, its only purpose is to pleasure your body, for a moment before you need a fix to fix your bad health because of addiction.

again kids, dont use drugs. If you wish to expand your mind or something like that, try to practise meditation or try to find another way that build up your creativity and mind.
baudelaire  
13 Sep 2008 15:59 | Quote
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Brazil
Karma: 2
i would STRONGLY disagree with you, empirism. what psychedelics do to you is NOT illusion.

the brain's job is to filter out of reality only what it deems necessary for a animal, that is struggling to survive. superfluous information, such as the nature of the universe, simply is not necessary for survival, and your brain filters it out. most of what your brain does, is hide and tuck away knowledge and sensory data that is not important to a animal.

what these chemicals do is break down those walls your brain has created, so the useless information, that one may as a artist, as a human with not just a body, but a spirit that seeks enlightenment, may be known to us. the profound thoughts that come to us under LSD intoxication are always present; but they are discarded by the brain as useless. the brilliance and beauty and self contained significance of everything in nature that is apparent to us under the influence of Mescaline, is always present... but it is not something your brain sees as useful, so it is filtered out. that's why we say, 'psychedelics open your mind'. our mind is infinitely powerful; when chemicals free it's latent powers, hallucinations occur when we either project our thoughts and emotions into reality; or, alternatively, they are simply not hallucinations, but invisible to the unaided brain.


and further more, if you of sound mind - no severe mental baggage, no mental issues such as schizophrenia or depression - psychedelics are completely harmless, if you just use a little common sense. LSD, for example, is easily hundreds of times safer then alcohol or tobacco, all things considered. there are no common use psychedelics that are toxic even in absurd doses over years and years; they will not damage your psyche, though, if they do their job, they SHOULD change it. for the better. cases of people doing stupid things on these drugs are extremely rare and virtually always exaggerated and combined with other factors then the drug itself.

i would go so far as to say that if one has any artistic ambition, you are doing yourself a Severe disservice by abstaining from these amazing chemicals and their wonderful effects. i would recommend all of you, every one of you that are of sound mind and body, to experiment with psychedelic substances if it is at all possible.

some of you will say that it is wrong of me to tell you all that you should at the very least experiment with psychedelics, if not regularly use them in a goal oriented and self documented manner for the expansion of your mind, as i have done at time. you might say it is wrong, but i am not lying when i tell you that there is less danger in this then there is in driving to work. i am not lying when i tell you that it is your right as a human to your body and mind, and to do with it as you please - that laws saying these things are illegal are wrong and not only should be held in contempt, but as a affirmation of those rights broken, in defiance. i am not lying when i tell you that there is more enlightenment then you can possibly imagine through the careful introspection of yourself and the amazing universe we live in, and that these chemicals are a pathway that is available to all of us.


on another note, i've experimented with heroin, pcp, cocaine, meth. never been really impressed. PCP was sort of fun, until the phone rang and i nearly dived under the couch; heroin was fun but it's a absolute devil, and so i won't be doing that again, meth and cocaine weren't even really fun. i wouldn't recommend any of you even bother with any of them. especially if you're feeling down, the temptation to use them as a escape will be strong, and you will get addicted. a good piece of advice is to never use drugs when you are feeling down; it's not good.



musicians, painters, writers, sculptors, are all known to be avid users of psychedelics for a very good reason: it can make you a better artist.
Phip  
13 Sep 2008 16:20 | Quote
Joined: 23 Dec 2007
United States
Lessons: 1
Karma: 45
Moderator
Baudelaire says:
i would recommend all of you, every one of you that are of sound mind and body, to experiment with psychedelic substances if it is at all possible.

This subject came up a week or two ago and the thread was deleted by the Admin or a representative of the Administration for the simple fact that you are advocating the use of drugs to children that have not yet reached the age of consent.
This is unacceptable!
What adults do is up to each individual (good choices, bad choices) but you will not promote drugs to underage individuals here. Don't push it Baudelaire!
Phip
Empirism  
13 Sep 2008 16:28 | Quote
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
Finland
Lessons: 4
Karma: 35
Baud, ive thought like that when i was younger. But when we speak of an enlightment or supreme state of mind where you are free from all of your thoughts and where you can as an true being observe your emotions without bonds can be accessed without chemicals.

Ofcourse these chemicals as you said open walls to understand some things better to achieve oneself path, but those hallusinations and visions in a path are illusion...dot.

When I said that these things are harmful I talked of drugs in general. Psychedelics are yes less harmful than alcohol forexample, but not completely... if you want I can bring you here proves of it. (someones might think that you are good example of one ;P, jk)

And yes its wrong to suggest psychedelics as well as alcohol to kids. that in this site have many. But thats it. we goin off topic here.

Cheers!
Empirism

edit,
yeah Phip, completely agreed.
EMB5490  
13 Sep 2008 17:03 | Quote
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
United States
Lessons: 1
Licks: 1
Karma: 31
omg delete the post, im sick of talking about drugs wen every one with a half a braain knows it kills, please delete these posts! im not gettn into this again, u may kill yourself, dont tell others to kill therselves.
JazzMaverick  
13 Sep 2008 17:32 | Quote
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
United Kingdom
Lessons: 24
Licks: 37
Karma: 47
Moderator
Sorry, I totally didn't realise there was another post which was deleted. Didn't mean to offend when I brought it up. I was just curious what people thought of it and if they've noticed major artists taking it.

I've always thought painters and musicians have taken it, writers and sculptors however, I didn't know about. I can definitely understand that though.

I'm not encouraging any of you to try it. And I probably shouldn't have posted it seeing as there are more younger people here than older. I deeply apologise for bringing this up.
baudelaire  
13 Sep 2008 17:38 | Quote
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Brazil
Karma: 2
phip: there is no age of consent for drugs anyways. they're illegal for all of us. there is no magic age at which a person becomes mature. i specifically warned people not to use DANGEROUS drugs such as narcotics, opiates, disassociates, deleriants, amphetamines, alcohol and tobacco. LSD specifically and other psychedelics with the exception of mushrooms have NO physical risk WHATSOEVER. no dependency risk WHATSOEVER. and the very small psychological risk, is even LESS for young minds, because young minds are more resilient, more able to handle and assimilate new things and spring back from startling disturbances in reality. research was even done before LSD was made illegal, (for the sole reason of a treaty made for solidarity reasons with NATO), that showed LSD to be POSITIVE not only for young people, but for CHILDREN, in terms of increasing intelligence and therapy.

empirism: supposing you are set in your ways of thinking that psychedelics produce illusions, instead of dispelling them, as i believe... consider this: think of them as parables. when christ told the story of the man that scattered seeds on the rich, the dry, and the stony ground, he did not ever actually see this occur. the story was fiction. but, was there any less meaning in his words, even though they did not truly occur?

EMB: i'm sick of your uninformed ignorance. if YOU had half a brain, you wouldn't make ridiculous blanket statements like, "drugs kill". because that is false; wrong; a lie; not true. drug ABUSE kills, and the vast majority of drug users do not abuse drugs. and in the instance of the specific drugs we were speaking of... LSD has killed ONE person. mescaline has killed NOBODY. DMT has killed NOBODY. extreme caution ought to be taken with mushrooms, because even experienced mycologists often die from misidentification, and overdosing IS possible. but common sense and using your head should keep you safe on the mushroom front. for you to say that chemicals that pose NO PHYSICAL OR ADDICTIVE RISK WHATSOEVER, and for whom the psychological risk is EXTREMELY MINIMAL AND EXTREMELY EXAGGERATED, is beyond stupid.


and i didn't even START this.
baudelaire  
13 Sep 2008 17:41 | Quote
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Brazil
Karma: 2
jazz, don't apologize for bringing up the fact that there are natural substances all around us that have been used for thousands of years as a way to connect with oneself, nature, and the universe, and have been used to inspire beautiful artwork, and that pose virtually no risk in the taking of them.

just because a deep cultural ignorance is ingrained regarding these wonderful gifts of nature, doesn't mean we should let people go on believing these lies. it doesn't mean we should shut up, when these people could be greatly helped by knowing the truth, and not the falsehoods and propaganda that society and the government have pushed on us.
JazzMaverick  
13 Sep 2008 18:04 | Quote
Joined: 28 Aug 2008
United Kingdom
Lessons: 24
Licks: 37
Karma: 47
Moderator
Good reference on the bible, totally forgot about that one.

EMB doesn't like drugs, and doesn't want to get involved with them or even know anything about them, I think that's his point. He wants to stay ignorant. He is entitled to that.

I apologised because it made some upset. I know they're natural (most anyway)

Places like Amsterdam allow it, but these countries just don't. I have no idea why. I also agree that the government is pushing their views and ingraining it into people's minds. But everyone can check it out online or something if they really want to, it's their choice if they're curious about it. England's made mushrooms an A class drug, and Weed is now a B class drug (b.s).

But everyone here doesn't want to know, and there are some really young kids here, which I forgot about, so I can't really continue this topic.
EMB5490  
13 Sep 2008 19:42 | Quote
Joined: 10 Feb 2008
United States
Lessons: 1
Licks: 1
Karma: 31
no! omfg! no! i know all about drugs, been ther done tht, i dont want to be involved i know tons about it, how many times have u been offered weed at the bus stop or been offered coke in the bathroom. amerterdam allows it? why? b/c they make money off of it. they tax the hell outta it and accdict cant stop so they keep buying it, so they get money. reason y i dont like to talk about drugs? ive seen kids my age suspended, arrested, expelled, and killed b/c of drugs, i am not going there.
Crunch  
13 Sep 2008 20:23 | Quote
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
United States
Karma: 3
I don't think they tax drug sales in Amsterdam. I'm fairly certain they tax prostitution, but I think it's just not a criminal offense to be in possession of drugs (which drugs, I don't know).

I know a lot of people who openly defame LSD without ever taking it, actually talking to someone who has, or knowing anything about it at all. Many say it's addictive, you will overdose, or kill yourself while tripping. These statements often come from people who are regular drinkers if not alcoholics. Their ignorance comes from a stigma about drugs that is, as baud said, ingrained in most of Western society.

p.s. It is almost impossible to overdose on LSD, and I'm fairly certain there's never been a reported case.
baudelaire  
13 Sep 2008 23:08 | Quote
Joined: 16 Aug 2008
Brazil
Karma: 2
there was one case, where a man thought it was smack, when it was pure crystalline LSD. he injected it and had a heart attack a little while later. but, other people have done more and survived, although obviously a little bent.

the LD50, the dose that could kill half of the people that dose was given to, is somewhere around 670,000 ugs, when a single hit is around 100 ugs nowadays. you'd have to be rich and determined to kill yourself with LSD.
telecrater  
13 Sep 2008 23:16 | Quote
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
United States
Lessons: 8
Karma: 13
I'm ignoring all the BS on drugs

I used to like motley crew when i was a kid (15 or so) but i quickly out grew them. but look they were as much image as miley or the Jonas whatever. but to call either being talentless is a little off. You may not be into them but they do have talent.

I really tire of all this bitching. who's better whos sucks, if you don't like then tune out.
Crunch  
14 Sep 2008 00:20 | Quote
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
United States
Karma: 3
I saw an interview where Lars Ulrich (drummer of Metallica) was talking about their days on the Sunset Strip. He saw Tommy Lee and Nikki Sixx so he yelled "Motley Crue F---ing sucks!" at them. Then he ran away, being the midget he is, and them being in platform boots.
BodomBeachTerror  
14 Sep 2008 00:22 | Quote
Joined: 27 May 2008
Canada
Lessons: 2
Licks: 1
Karma: 25
lol yeah, the original thrash bands HATED motley crue lol
TheAmericanBrit  
14 Sep 2008 02:33 | Quote
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
United States
Karma: 1
Screw the image. Music should be about music.

Seriously, the best bands don't have to run around on stage and make themselves look hardcore because they don't have to.

Crue was all about the image, not the music. Musically, they were completely abysmal.

When I (someone who hates thrash and most metal) prefer thrash and what not over you, that REALLY says something.

Crunch  
14 Sep 2008 13:30 | Quote
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
United States
Karma: 3
They did what they wanted to with their music, and it's not like they can't play at all. I'd even go so far as to wager that they're more technically skilled than anyone on these forums. They are professionals, but to say they're "abysmal" when they can obviously play their instruments quite well just doesn't make sense. And, even if you say "screw the image," that doesn't mean everyone else does. That's just how it worked, works, and will work. You have to take this stuff with pinch of salt, nawutimean?

Adieu.
TheAmericanBrit  
14 Sep 2008 18:59 | Quote
Joined: 03 Sep 2008
United States
Karma: 1
I'm not saying they couldn't play good music, I'm saying they DIDN'T. The music they created sucked (aside from a song here or there).


Copyright © 2004-2017 All-Guitar-Chords.com. All rights reserved.