Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Exactly, rubiksnoob.

Exactly.

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Okay, I am officially hacked off. I was listening to Arcade Fires "Wake Up" and I realized that I was mad. I then realized that I was mad becuase I wasn't actually playing music, and have NEVER owned a instrument, and as such, have never played a song, even a cruddy one. Now I'm mad again. This stinks. I REALLY need an instrument

Sooo...What would a good guitar set up (Electric Bass, or just Electric) cost, including Amps? I really am not looking for anything top-notch, just something I can use as an emotional funnel. Shoot, I would be happy with a red cheapo plastic guitar, like Jack Whites first one. Any recommendations?

Bravey

I started off on an acoustic, which helped. You don't need an amp or anything, either. Better to buy one to learn, than fork out on an electric straight away.
Then again, I haven't played in years, now. I can only play "Smoke on the Water."

Redbeard wrote:As for instruments, the biggest difference between a good instrument and a poor one these days is the quality of the electronics.

Strong disagree. The difference between a good and a poor is the quality and aging of the wood. Most of the good, aged wood got used up years ago. The aging of the wood affects resonance and depth of sound very significantly. The quality of the electronics I'd say is second, tied with hardware (crappy tuners and the like, which are easily enough replaced though are a hassle).

Redbeard wrote:

Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".

Bashing St. Anger doesn't make you cool, it makes you right.

If by "right" you mean "stuck up music snob who rabidly dislikes any differently styled music", yes, it does.

Melissia wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
Bashing St. Anger doesn't make you cool, it makes you right.

If by "right" you mean "stuck up music snob who rabidly dislikes any differently styled music", yes, it does.

If I can't pull that off defending Huey Lewis and the News's Sports album, it won't work for St. Anger either.

Good for you, or not. My opinion still stands

I like Saint Anger. It has a good amount of emotion behind it, and I can get into that music pretty easily. It's different than other Metallica stuff, but that doesn't make it bad.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Redbeard wrote:As for instruments, the biggest difference between a good instrument and a poor one these days is the quality of the electronics.

Strong disagree. The difference between a good and a poor is the quality and aging of the wood. Most of the good, aged wood got used up years ago. The aging of the wood affects resonance and depth of sound very significantly. The quality of the electronics I'd say is second, tied with hardware (crappy tuners and the like, which are easily enough replaced though are a hassle).

I disagree, until you talk about comparisons between the real upper-end instruments. Yes, wood makes a difference. But you're not going to notice that in the difference between a $150 Squire and a $750 strat. You'll notice the difference in their electronics though. I'd be willing to bet that more people would notice a difference if I switched the tubes in an amp from a 5751 series to a 12AX7 than if I swapped a maple guitar for a mahogany one.

Melissia wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".

Bashing St. Anger doesn't make you cool, it makes you right.

If by "right" you mean "stuck up music snob who rabidly dislikes any differently styled music", yes, it does.

You have no idea what styles of music I like. It's also entirely possible to be critical of a work within the context it's intended for. St. Anger isn't good. It's not "bad for Metallica", it's just bad. Musically speaking. Lyrically, I don't know. It might be emotionally deep, but if I cared about the words, I'd read poetry instead.

I guess since this is the Musically Po'ed thread, I'll throw that out too. Bad music isn't suddenly good because the writer was deep or angsty. Being wordy is no excuse for not knowing things like keys, time signatures, being in tune, or staying in time.

No, it's not bad. Why? Simple, if it was bad, I wouldn't enjoy it.

Yes, before anyone says it again, duh, no gak, it's subjective, it's just my opinion, yada yada yada But that's the only way that I am willing to gauge good music.

Sometimes music which is technically perfect isn't really all that interesting. I actually find some songs in Saint Anger to have more draw for me than some of Metallica's older songs which are proclaimed to be "OMGWTFBBQ GREAT" by diehard Metallica fans. "Enter Sandman" is often declared as a great song, but I don't enjoy it so I couldn't even call it mediocre.

Saint Anger is good, but "Enter Sandman" doesn't qualify as mediocre?

That opinion is wrong.

Hmmm, I think I have settled upon practicing with the old Acoustic guitar my family owns until I am relativity sure I want to invest a good chunk of money, then getting either a Fender Squier Stratocaster, or a Fender Starcaster starter set from Amazon for around $170 (includes small amp, strap, guitar, picks. It has a pretty good rating). Or I might get a Fender Squier Bass, a friend of mine who is in a good up and coming local band used that one for a while.

Thanks for the help!

_Tim?

Monster Rain wrote:Saint Anger is good, but "Enter Sandman" doesn't qualify as mediocre?

That opinion is wrong.

I enjoy Saint Anger, but I don't enjoy Enter Sandman. Therefor, Saint Anger is good, and Enter Sandman is not.

If this offends you, why are you on the internet?

Melissia wrote:If this offends you, why are you on the internet?

To pick fights with you, of course

No one even mentioned St. Anger until you preemptively defended it. It's like you wanted to provoke conflict over an album that you know isn't very good (in spite of how much you personally enjoy it).

I merely gave that as an example. I could also mention post-Tarja Nighwish, too-- a few rather vocal fans really, REALLY hate the new singer, Anette... though the fanbase is a bit less split over this than over Saint Anger.

daedalus wrote:

Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".

edit: technically, you can insert any album there.

Saint Anger was such an underwhelming and mediocre effort that it caused most of their listenership that I personally knew, a large amount of the third shift Jack in the Box crowd, to swear off Metallica forever. They promptly sold their bitchin' Cameros, cut their hair, and started wearing non-denim shirts with collars. As far as the "Lifetime Betrayed Anticipation Award" goes, St. Anger was second really only to the overwhelming tie for first place: Chinese Democracy and Black Ice. GnR took 9 years and AC/DC took about 8 to absolutely perfect beyond all criticism their greatest albums... which are indistinguishable from the rest. And I was almost excited about the AC/DC one. It reminded me of Zoolander. Ben Stiller's character had different poses, but they were all the same.


Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I think Black Ice was never intended to be anything more than another AC/DC album. Hell Angus even jokes that all of their stuff sounds the same.

GNR is a band cursed by their own success, how the hell can they top Apetite? Chinese Democracy is ok for an album by someone else (who? I haven't a clue)

Redbeard wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Redbeard wrote:As for instruments, the biggest difference between a good instrument and a poor one these days is the quality of the electronics.

Strong disagree. The difference between a good and a poor is the quality and aging of the wood. Most of the good, aged wood got used up years ago. The aging of the wood affects resonance and depth of sound very significantly. The quality of the electronics I'd say is second, tied with hardware (crappy tuners and the like, which are easily enough replaced though are a hassle).

I disagree, until you talk about comparisons between the real upper-end instruments. Yes, wood makes a difference. But you're not going to notice that in the difference between a $150 Squire and a $750 strat. You'll notice the difference in their electronics though. I'd be willing to bet that more people would notice a difference if I switched the tubes in an amp from a 5751 series to a 12AX7 than if I swapped a maple guitar for a mahogany one.

The thing I'm driving at is that you would know the difference in play. Yes, musicians tend to have hyper-sensitive ears, but when I play guitar it's not just for the listener, but also for me. The main problem with your example is that you're comparing two strats which I personally consider horrible guitars until you hit the $1,000+ mark. Clones are often better quality for the same price. It really comes down to who you're trying to impress. If you want impress all the kids in school, get a new SG or, my personal favorite of crap-sounding popular instruments, a warlock and run it through a Marshall, then throw some Line6 digital effects in to really amp up the mediocrity. If you want to sound good, then that's an entirely different matter. You'll have to agree that among 3 of the "same" starter guitars, one will sound better than the others. If not, I'll just have to agree to disagree.

Melissia wrote:No, it's not bad. Why? Simple, if it was bad, I wouldn't enjoy it.

Yes, before anyone says it again, duh, no gak, it's subjective, it's just my opinion, yada yada yada But that's the only way that I am willing to gauge good music.

...aaaaand pet peeve. It's not that it's not bad or good based on you liking it, it's whether you like it or not that is based on you liking it. I can't listen to certain jazz artists but they're still objectively good.

Basically, music has both an objective and a subjective component. "Mike Portnoy plays faster than 90% of the drummers who ever lived" is an objective statement, whereas "Ignition is more listenable than Conspiracy of One" is very subjective. I listen to artists that aren't good in many ways, and I dislike many artists who are. That just comes down to enjoying music, which is what you're talking about.

Like I always say, you can like a child's fingerpainting more than a Rembrandt, but that doesn't mean that the Rembrandt didn't take more talent or effort to produce.

Music exists on two scales of 'Good'. One is completely objective (physical talent, compositional aptitude, creativity). One is completely subjective (personal preference). So many people fail to understand this.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
The thing I'm driving at is that you would know the difference in play. Yes, musicians tend to have hyper-sensitive ears, but when I play guitar it's not just for the listener, but also for me. The main problem with your example is that you're comparing two strats which I personally consider horrible guitars until you hit the $1,000+ mark. Clones are often better quality for the same price.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. My point is that the difference between low-end guitars (often clones) and mid-range guitars is largely the electronics. Mid-range guitars are still factory produced, and the price difference between the two is not because they're using high-quality woods in the mid-range guitars, but because they're using better electronic components. I don't think the original poster was interested in buying a PRS to learn to play on, you know.

You'll have to agree that among 3 of the "same" starter guitars, one will sound better than the others. If not, I'll just have to agree to disagree.

You mean you could pick one of three factory mass-produced squires as sounding better than the others? Or that one of three guitars in the $200 price range sounds better? I agree with the second statement, but not the first. The mass-produced instruments are so similar these days due to modern manufacturing technology that I don't think I could tell one from another by sound alone.

This wasn't always the case. As recently as 30 years ago, there was variety among low-end instruments and you could find real gems if you spent the time looking. They'd run out of a component and so substitute a different one. I've actually done a lot of rewiring work on guitars (and tube amps) and the differences in some older models can be surprising.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:...aaaaand pet peeve. It's not that it's not bad or good based on you liking it, it's whether you like it or not that is based on you liking it. I can't listen to certain jazz artists but they're still objectively good.

No, they're talented. There's a difference between good music and talented artists, though talented artists typically produce good music, the difference is quite distinct.

What constitutes good music is entirely subjective, but one can argue for one artist being more talented than the other.

Melissia wrote:No, they're talented. There's a difference between good music and talented artists, though talented artists typically produce good music, the difference is quite distinct.

What constitutes good music is entirely subjective, but one can argue for one artist being more talented than the other.

Being talented is defined as being good at something, hence 'Objectively good'. The difference may be distinct to you, but your personal preference towards what makes good music exists in your mind alone.

No one in their right mind would try to argue the subjective nature of personal preference. Most musical debates exist as a reflection of the artist's talent, not personal resonance.

Personally, my enjoyment of music stems from an artist's talent completely (rather than what 'feeling' the artist is trying to convey), so 'talented music' and 'good music' are one and the same to me.

Redbeard wrote:
You mean you could pick one of three factory mass-produced squires as sounding better than the others? Or that one of three guitars in the $200 price range sounds better? I agree with the second statement, but not the first. The mass-produced instruments are so similar these days due to modern manufacturing technology that I don't think I could tell one from another by sound alone.

I actually mean both. I believe there can be a huge difference in sound (huge being huge to me, of course ) difference in sound between even the cheapest instruments. Some just sound and feel better than others. I'm not the guy to run down to guitar center immediately and pick up the first thing that looks pretty obviously (not implying anything about you).

Redbeard wrote: I guess since this is the Musically Po'ed thread, I'll throw that out too. Bad music isn't suddenly good because the writer was deep or angsty. Being wordy is no excuse for not knowing things like keys, time signatures, being in tune, or staying in time.

Scroobius Pip begs to differ.

Chrysaor686 wrote:your personal preference towards what makes good music exists in your mind alone.

Insert caustic sarcastic reference to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels here.

Melissia wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:...aaaaand pet peeve. It's not that it's not bad or good based on you liking it, it's whether you like it or not that is based on you liking it. I can't listen to certain jazz artists but they're still objectively good.

No, they're talented. There's a difference between good music and talented artists, though talented artists typically produce good music, the difference is quite distinct.

What constitutes good music is entirely subjective, but one can argue for one artist being more talented than the other.

Talent is also a subjective term, it's qualitative not quantitative.

ShumaGorath wrote:Talent is also a subjective term, it's qualitative not quantitative.

Right, but it exists on an objective scale based on clearly measurable factors, so it's actually worth debating.

I think the speed element is a good example. Guitarist A can shred 9 bajillion notes a second. Guitarist B can muster only 5 bajillion. One is clearly faster. That's not implying who's more soulful, a better writer, a more melodic, etc.

Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".

edit: technically, you can insert any album there.

That's what everyone does.
Hell, the amount of abuse My Chemical Romance gets is just obscene. And then I ask people what they don't like about it, and they're usually: "... I dunno, I've never heard their stuff."

Chrysaor686 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Talent is also a subjective term, it's qualitative not quantitative.

Right, but it exists on an objective scale based on clearly measurable factors, so it's actually worth debating.

Not in this setting where none of you have the credentials to objectively measure those factors, nor are any of you actually... Y'know... Doing so anyway.

Wolfun wrote:

Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".

edit: technically, you can insert any album there.

That's what everyone does.
Hell, the amount of abuse My Chemical Romance gets is just obscene. And then I ask people what they don't like about it, and they're usually: "... I dunno, I've never heard their stuff."

Yeah, I'm not their biggest fan, but I do like some of their pieces...

Melissia wrote:

Wolfun wrote:

Melissia wrote:I get musically PO'd every time someone bashes the Saint Anger album just because they think that doing so makes them "cool".

edit: technically, you can insert any album there.

That's what everyone does.
Hell, the amount of abuse My Chemical Romance gets is just obscene. And then I ask people what they don't like about it, and they're usually: "... I dunno, I've never heard their stuff."

Yeah, I'm not their biggest fan, but I do like some of their pieces...

I really hate some songs, but really enjoy others. Everyone just likes to get on the bandwagon.
I hate when people do that.

More than I hate Twilight...

Cannerus_the_unbearable wrote:I think the speed element is a good example. Guitarist A can shred 9 bajillion notes a second. Guitarist B can muster only 5 bajillion. One is clearly faster. That's not implying who's more soulful, a better writer, a more melodic, etc.

There are numerous other factors, such as accuracy, understanding of disonance and harmony, ability to keep time (especially when you start throwing multiple time signatures and polyrythms into the mix), how many techniques a musician employs to play his or her instrument, and knowledge of various scales and chords.

When you get to the upper echelons of music, it becomes difficult to really pick a 'best' musician, as they're all working towards different goals.