american idol sucks!!! mythbusters rule!!!
I only watch the american idol auditions cause they are funny...some of the people that try out cannot be serious.
American Idol
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
prog_rockin_metal_man
- Member
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:37 pm
- Contact:
-
jwr2
a lot of people love the american idol program ...
there is an English program sort of like mythbusters ... brainiac ... they test the myth that women look better as you drink more beer ... they took 4 guys and had them rate 4 women on a scale of 1 to 10 then they feed them ale for a couple of hours and had them rate the same 4 women ... and they got higher ratings ...
But I still prefer mythbusters ... they run around blowing stuff up and laughing ... and they get paid for it ... how cool is that ...
there is an English program sort of like mythbusters ... brainiac ... they test the myth that women look better as you drink more beer ... they took 4 guys and had them rate 4 women on a scale of 1 to 10 then they feed them ale for a couple of hours and had them rate the same 4 women ... and they got higher ratings ...
But I still prefer mythbusters ... they run around blowing stuff up and laughing ... and they get paid for it ... how cool is that ...
-
shamustwin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5287
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:00 am
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>>I think they're trying to find an early 1960's idol. Someone who can sing someone else's songs (any style), dance at little, and maybe act a little.<<
I sorta disagree, Randy. Why? We live in a world now where many entertainment businesses are owned by parent publishing companies that do heavy traffic in the gossip industry.
That is, if they can just find someone and get them onto any celebrity list....even a D list... if they make next to nothing on the person's "career", their main goal is to make the real $ on gossip, just build someone up enough to gossip about them, as many weeks as possible.
Paris Hilton is a perfect example, and of course there are too many others. One week someone is "a singer." The next? A reality show star, or even someone who has a sex tape out that dated a singer, doesn't matter.
That's what I meant by sad. The whole deal's run by bean counters...the same guys that wrecked the US auto industry. No wonder total sales of music, including downloads, are down like 5% even in a recovering economy. Forget building catalogs or investing in real careers. No wonder kids are wearing T shirts with 30 year old band logos on them.
>>Paula Abdul is judging singers on that show. When did she develop credibility?<<
Chris Rock pointed this out by way of a joke "Paula Abdul JUDGING a singing contest?! What the...."
But you hit on it. In this gossip and D list celeb as entertainment world we're in, they dragged up Paula and made her a "star."
I'm surprised so many Rickenbackers are selling. I guess kids figure if they want decent music they'll have to make their own. Only in our days at least we could dream that someone would be rewarded for actually having talent.
I sorta disagree, Randy. Why? We live in a world now where many entertainment businesses are owned by parent publishing companies that do heavy traffic in the gossip industry.
That is, if they can just find someone and get them onto any celebrity list....even a D list... if they make next to nothing on the person's "career", their main goal is to make the real $ on gossip, just build someone up enough to gossip about them, as many weeks as possible.
Paris Hilton is a perfect example, and of course there are too many others. One week someone is "a singer." The next? A reality show star, or even someone who has a sex tape out that dated a singer, doesn't matter.
That's what I meant by sad. The whole deal's run by bean counters...the same guys that wrecked the US auto industry. No wonder total sales of music, including downloads, are down like 5% even in a recovering economy. Forget building catalogs or investing in real careers. No wonder kids are wearing T shirts with 30 year old band logos on them.
>>Paula Abdul is judging singers on that show. When did she develop credibility?<<
Chris Rock pointed this out by way of a joke "Paula Abdul JUDGING a singing contest?! What the...."
But you hit on it. In this gossip and D list celeb as entertainment world we're in, they dragged up Paula and made her a "star."
I'm surprised so many Rickenbackers are selling. I guess kids figure if they want decent music they'll have to make their own. Only in our days at least we could dream that someone would be rewarded for actually having talent.
This is off the record
"No wonder kids are wearing T shirts with 30 year old band logos on them."
Actually, I think more cynically about this: very few of the people I know who wear all those shirts know much of anything about the bands in question. People wearing Pink Floyd shirts inevitably know "Dark Side of the Moon", "Wish You Were Here", and "The Wall" . . . and nothing else. Not even "Animals". And, in fact, they only know the hits from "The Wall" . . . no one ever talks about how amazing a song "Goodbye Blue Sky" or "In the Flesh?/In The Flesh" is. It's always just "Another Brick in the Wall, pt. 2" and "Comfortably Numb". Same with Led Zeppelin. No one EVER knows anything other than the songs off of "IV", and "Kashmir", "Moby Dick" (which I think is a horrendous drum solo, hardly indicative at all of the amazing talent of John Bonham), "Heartbreaker", and "Whole Lotta Love". And so on and so on. Know one knows The Who except for a couple songs off "Tommy" and the song "My Generation".
The reason most of these kids are wearing these shirts is because it is cool nowadays to like old bands. While I admit that I am not opposed to this trend, the unfortunate side effect is that most people don't actually LISTEN to these bands (except for their greatest hits) . . . rather, they just LIKE them. Every kid in my high school LOVED the Grateful Dead. What album did they love? "American Beauty". Maybe "Workingman's Dead". Had they listened to the other albums, like "Aoxomoxoa" or "Terrapin Station" or "Blues For Allah" or anything else? No. But that didn't matter, because the Grateful Dead were awesome and therefore you had to like them. Doesn't matter that you've only heard one album and don't care to listen to any of the others; you like them and, as a result, you "get it".
I think it's good that people are getting interested in older bands, and there are certainly people who actually are listening to all this old stuff; I know a friend of mine who is obsessed with old '50s and '60s twist and dance music. She goes to stores and buys every album and record she can find with that sort of stuff on it, and she listens to it avidly. This is in addition to all the current bands she likes. But there are very few of these people around who actually take the time to listen to older bands for anything more than the coolness factor that it gives them. Liking old bands is like "street cred" for American teenagers; if you're not a Zep fan, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Can you name any songs off of "Presence"? Did even know they had an album called "Presence"? No? No matter, you're a Zep fan anyway, and that's cool.
I think this is the same reason, for the most part, that you see all these newer bands playing Rickenbackers. I may be wrong; maybe they all actually DO like how they sound . . . but I doubt it. For the most part, recent bands using Rickenbackers (especially basses) are doing it because it's "vintage". It's like an old band from the '70s: using a Rickenbacker is cool. Granted, there are quite a few artists that use Rickenbackers because they want "the" sound, or because they are genuinely into the basses and guitars. But really, I think it's mostly a trend. It's the same reason that, a few years back, EVERYONE was playing a Stingray; they were doing it because Flea played one, and Flea was awesome. In the '80s, everyone played a pointy-headed bass or guitar because that was cool. In the early '90s, beat-up Fenders were cool. In the mid-late '90s, PRS guitars and Stingrays were cool. Now, it's Gibson LPs and either a P-bass or a Rickenbacker.
Once again, I think it's good that lots of people are using Rickenbackers: it brings attention to what has usually been dismissed as a "one-trick pony" brand, guitars that only sound like the '60s, and basses that only sound like Chris Squire. I know there are people, like myself, who are enamored with every aspect of Rickenbackers: sound, feel, looks, everything. But I really think the vast majority of the increase in new bands using Rickenbackers can simply be attributed to Rickenbackers being "in". They're the cool bass to play.
Actually, I think more cynically about this: very few of the people I know who wear all those shirts know much of anything about the bands in question. People wearing Pink Floyd shirts inevitably know "Dark Side of the Moon", "Wish You Were Here", and "The Wall" . . . and nothing else. Not even "Animals". And, in fact, they only know the hits from "The Wall" . . . no one ever talks about how amazing a song "Goodbye Blue Sky" or "In the Flesh?/In The Flesh" is. It's always just "Another Brick in the Wall, pt. 2" and "Comfortably Numb". Same with Led Zeppelin. No one EVER knows anything other than the songs off of "IV", and "Kashmir", "Moby Dick" (which I think is a horrendous drum solo, hardly indicative at all of the amazing talent of John Bonham), "Heartbreaker", and "Whole Lotta Love". And so on and so on. Know one knows The Who except for a couple songs off "Tommy" and the song "My Generation".
The reason most of these kids are wearing these shirts is because it is cool nowadays to like old bands. While I admit that I am not opposed to this trend, the unfortunate side effect is that most people don't actually LISTEN to these bands (except for their greatest hits) . . . rather, they just LIKE them. Every kid in my high school LOVED the Grateful Dead. What album did they love? "American Beauty". Maybe "Workingman's Dead". Had they listened to the other albums, like "Aoxomoxoa" or "Terrapin Station" or "Blues For Allah" or anything else? No. But that didn't matter, because the Grateful Dead were awesome and therefore you had to like them. Doesn't matter that you've only heard one album and don't care to listen to any of the others; you like them and, as a result, you "get it".
I think it's good that people are getting interested in older bands, and there are certainly people who actually are listening to all this old stuff; I know a friend of mine who is obsessed with old '50s and '60s twist and dance music. She goes to stores and buys every album and record she can find with that sort of stuff on it, and she listens to it avidly. This is in addition to all the current bands she likes. But there are very few of these people around who actually take the time to listen to older bands for anything more than the coolness factor that it gives them. Liking old bands is like "street cred" for American teenagers; if you're not a Zep fan, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Can you name any songs off of "Presence"? Did even know they had an album called "Presence"? No? No matter, you're a Zep fan anyway, and that's cool.
I think this is the same reason, for the most part, that you see all these newer bands playing Rickenbackers. I may be wrong; maybe they all actually DO like how they sound . . . but I doubt it. For the most part, recent bands using Rickenbackers (especially basses) are doing it because it's "vintage". It's like an old band from the '70s: using a Rickenbacker is cool. Granted, there are quite a few artists that use Rickenbackers because they want "the" sound, or because they are genuinely into the basses and guitars. But really, I think it's mostly a trend. It's the same reason that, a few years back, EVERYONE was playing a Stingray; they were doing it because Flea played one, and Flea was awesome. In the '80s, everyone played a pointy-headed bass or guitar because that was cool. In the early '90s, beat-up Fenders were cool. In the mid-late '90s, PRS guitars and Stingrays were cool. Now, it's Gibson LPs and either a P-bass or a Rickenbacker.
Once again, I think it's good that lots of people are using Rickenbackers: it brings attention to what has usually been dismissed as a "one-trick pony" brand, guitars that only sound like the '60s, and basses that only sound like Chris Squire. I know there are people, like myself, who are enamored with every aspect of Rickenbackers: sound, feel, looks, everything. But I really think the vast majority of the increase in new bands using Rickenbackers can simply be attributed to Rickenbackers being "in". They're the cool bass to play.
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>>While I admit that I am not opposed to this trend, the unfortunate side effect is that most people don't actually LISTEN to these bands<<
Well, maybe it's CDs. In the LP era, one could get through an entire album in 30-40 minutes, maybe even less. CDs became too long, with two many songs that would otherwise have been b-sides.
And people have too many other things going on, personal tech constantly going off, too many commercial breaks on commercial radio, etc., etc. Everyone has A.D.D by necessity.
Far as young bands liking older gear, perhaps the Redwalls and others find inspiration in them.
Well, maybe it's CDs. In the LP era, one could get through an entire album in 30-40 minutes, maybe even less. CDs became too long, with two many songs that would otherwise have been b-sides.
And people have too many other things going on, personal tech constantly going off, too many commercial breaks on commercial radio, etc., etc. Everyone has A.D.D by necessity.
Far as young bands liking older gear, perhaps the Redwalls and others find inspiration in them.
This is off the record
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
I never watched it but tuned in tonight because my girlfriend likes it. To me it's amazing how many people watch these shows when 90% of the time they are merely explaining the rules of the show, the voting..blah, blah. This is entertaining? And what's with Rod Stewart as a crooner?!?!?
This is off the record
"Well, maybe it's CDs. In the LP era, one could get through an entire album in 30-40 minutes, maybe even less. CDs became too long, with two many songs that would otherwise have been b-sides."
I guess that could be part of it, but I've also noticed that a lot of bands today are putting out albums that are only about 45 minutes in length or so. I think you're right, though: people stuck with the "3 and a half minute single" formula through the move to CDs, and figured, "Hey, we can fit more stuff on here!" without actually thinking if more stuff meant a better album. Some albums necessitate 75 minutes of music, some don't. Just because the space is there doesn't mean it should all be filled up; you don't write a paper with length in mind, you write until you're done. If everyone played until they were done rather than until they had X minutes of music, I think we would end up with much more "together" albums.
I guess that could be part of it, but I've also noticed that a lot of bands today are putting out albums that are only about 45 minutes in length or so. I think you're right, though: people stuck with the "3 and a half minute single" formula through the move to CDs, and figured, "Hey, we can fit more stuff on here!" without actually thinking if more stuff meant a better album. Some albums necessitate 75 minutes of music, some don't. Just because the space is there doesn't mean it should all be filled up; you don't write a paper with length in mind, you write until you're done. If everyone played until they were done rather than until they had X minutes of music, I think we would end up with much more "together" albums.
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm