Harvester
The Promoter
The special edition with the free dvd was not released in the U.S. Thus, you are paying an import price because vendors had to pay a higher price to obtain it.
It's a cluster fuck all the way around.
The video may be crap, but the new Sym-X is astounding!
- Thread starter PurpleCrayonWriter
- Start date
The special edition with the free dvd was not released in the U.S. Thus, you are paying an import price because vendors had to pay a higher price to obtain it.
It's a cluster fuck all the way around.
FatesFan
Member
- Dec 18, 2004
- 1,667
- 0
- 36
J-Dubya 777
It NEVER ends
My FYE cd/DVD version was $14.99. The lowest I saw the cd digi was for $12.99. I figured the extra DVD was worth the extra $2, even though I lost some karma shopping at FYE, but it was conveniant otw to work. I think the biggest clusterfuck was some vendors advertising a DVD with the documentary on it, as well as the exclusive bonus tune. Not blaming the vendors, as this bad info seemed to come from the label itself. You'd think one of the most anticipated cds to come out from them would have had better, more solid info behind it. The cd slays, and that's all I was concerned about
FatesFan
Member
- Dec 18, 2004
- 1,667
- 0
- 36
My FYE cd/DVD version was $14.99. The lowest I saw the cd digi was for $12.99. I figured the extra DVD was worth the extra $2, even though I lost some karma shopping at FYE, but it was conveniant otw to work. I think the biggest clusterfuck was some vendors advertising a DVD with the documentary on it, as well as the exclusive bonus tune. Not blaming the vendors, as this bad info seemed to come from the label itself. You'd think one of the most anticipated cds to come out from them would have had better, more solid info behind it. The cd slays, and that's all I was concerned about
15 bucks is not bad for the cd/dvd combo. I paid 20 bucks. Best Buy had the digi for 14.99. We do not have an fye in our town but there is one in the town next to ours. I always thought they were high on their prices though. Maybe I will check in the future.
PoisonSeed
Grin
The sarcasm was pointed towards the original poster and his post. Not at the existence or non-existence of Yngwie's rhythm section.
Of course, I could've argued "properly" from the start. I've just seen too many posts and threads on these forums since the the release (and before) of PL with too much whining and bullshit. It's really simple: if you don't like it from what you've heard, don't buy it. Or just download it. If you bought it, too bad... Don't buy the next one.
The only sure thing is that this album is not some cheap, half-assed release by some random band. It's Symphony X whether you enjoy it's content or not. So... it really comes down to personal taste.
...and seriously, I'm not expecting any civility. Fuck that.
Ascension
New Metal Member
That's the problem...it's being percieved as a half assed release because it took them over 4 years to put out & there are those that expected better. Especially from SX who most hold in high regard.
Correct it's personal taste...but to start referring to people with differing opinions in an immature manner and illicit a similar response (which l stand guilty of & l apologize) is disappointing. I would expect this on the SX forum considering the maturity level. If you post over there much & contribute, well....
SyXified
Member
Well for those of us who waited until the actual release date instead of downloading to listen to the material, it was the first opportunity to share an opinion on it. And when one is anxiously awaiting his favorite band's '4 years in the making' CD and it turns out he doesn't like it... well, that tends to make one want to say something about it.
I think this whole notion everyone always reverts to when something they like is criticized - that it all comes down to personal taste - is one of the biggest misconceptions about music - it really DOESN'T come down to personal taste, it's simply extraordinarily hard to actually define what empirical facts determine good vs bad.
If music came down to just personal taste then Symphony X is no better and no worse than 50 Cent
If music came down to just personal taste then there would be no point in sharing our opinions on it because no one would be able to persuade anyone else, and everyone is equally right in whatever they chose to blurt out, so we're all just wasting each others time
If music came down to just personal taste there would be no incentive to master instruments and break conventions (be...progressive) and spend hours to days laboring over tiny vocal melodies or guitar solos to get them 'right'.
If the quality of music is purely subjective, the goal of music would have to be to get the MOST people to like it as possible, meaning Symphony X is seriously lagging behind Jay Z and the dreaded Slipknot, based purely on numbers.
At its most basic, there is truth to the fact that with music - some of it is great, and some of it sucks. And once you accept that idea in its most basic form (like Bach = good, throwing rocks at a plugged in guitar for hours and calling it a song (which, by the way, is a real life and mainstream example)) then you can't say that idea works in that case but when you get to the more gray areas it does not - because that would not make sense, that qualification would be entirely subjective, thus destroying the objectivity of the premise. For any music listener or composer who actually cares about music, he is in a constant struggle to try to figure out what 'good' in music actually is - despite the fact that no one really knows (except maybe the beatles, they seemed to have it pretty well figured out
). And THAT is why it is worthwhile to argue about music - at the very least it shows you are passionate about it.
J-Dubya 777
It NEVER ends
Does it make you "better" that you waited, and me (& others) who may have received a promo, or dl'ed mp3s "worse"? I have ZERO issue with you saying anything about NOT liking the new Sy-X....so far so good.....
Please enlighten us on how you (and the rest of the known universe) should quantify good/bad. What is your unit of measure?
To a fan of 50 Cent, Sy-X sucks, and vice versa. Some may like both.
(I'm not one of them, for the record...) Both obviously have a ton of fans, and both sell lots of cds. Again, what MEASURABLY makes 50 Cent any better or worse than Sy-X?
Then why do you come to these forums? Music is art. There really is no right or wrong in creating "art". What you think is a beautiful painting, for example, I may think looks like monkeys throwing scat at a canvas. Music is the same thing, only instead of seeing it, you hear it. We all have our limits in what we consider to be the highest and lowest limits in what we consider art. Is an upside down cross in a jar of urine the same thing as a Monet painting? Not in my book, but others may see it that way. Are they wrong? Morally, perhaps, but artisticly?
The incentive would be to get them to sound "right" in the ears of its creator. The incentive to master ones instrument has to come from within, for reasons ranging from being able to play what you hear in your head, to keeping up with the other "artists" and trying to expand on what they have created. Friendly, or unfriendly, competition...
Only if making money, or being "famous" or keeping up was your goal. How many people sculpt, paint, or record music in their own homes, for their own enjoyment? Is their "art" any worse/better than the "pros"?
At its most basic, there is truth to the fact that with music - some of it is great, and some of it sucks. And once you accept that idea in its most basic form (like Bach = good, throwing rocks at a plugged in guitar for hours and calling it a song (which, by the way, is a real life and mainstream example)) then you can't say that idea works in that case but when you get to the more gray areas it does not - because that would not make sense, that qualification would be entirely subjective, thus destroying the objectivity of the premise. For any music listener or composer who actually cares about music, he is in a constant struggle to try to figure out what 'good' in music actually is - despite the fact that no one really knows (except maybe the beatles, they seemed to have it pretty well figured out
What if throwing rocks at a plugged in guitar resonates with a person more than Bach? Is that person wrong for liking it & thinking it's good? What if listening to Bach makes the same person's teeth hurt? I don't think I'm in a constant struggle as a listener, as I know what resonates with me. I know what I like, It may not be the same thing that resonates with you. As a composer, I would agree that if you want to keep on reaching new heights, you should never be 100% completely satisfied with what you create. No matter how perfect & "good" you might think it is, someone will come along and figuratively shit on it. Oh, and some people I know DESPISE the Beatles.
(again, I'm not one of them) but I don't think they're "wrong", I can shrug it off, and say it's just a matter of individual taste, which IMO, is what art in all its forms is really about.
Andy Laudano
Member
After listening to the new album myself, I'm not at all surprised by these comments. Why? Because I freakin' LOVE this album!
Let me start by saying I'm not your typical Symphony X fan. I've always thought they were insanely talented and I loved watching them perform live. I think Russell Allen is one of the best singers in the world and LOVE his stuff with Jorn Lande and solo. Michael Romeo's an amazing guitarist. But I never could get into listening to them on CD. For the most part, I really enjoy catchy, chorus driven bands like Edguy, PC69, Nocturnal Rites, etc. So when I put in Paradise Lost and immediately found myself singing along to "Set the World On Fire" I had a feeling there was a likely possibility that some longtime fans might not be as appreciative. I didn't even mind Allen's more aggressive vocals because they were not death metal growls - he was still singing and you can easilly understand what he's saying. At least more SymX fans seem to enjoy this than Evergrey fans did Monday Morning Appocalypse (which of course I also loved).
Ascension
New Metal Member
An obvious PoS reference...you should be called names & ridiculed.
l keed l keed
BTW - enjoyed what you had to say...l got a headache from having to think about it...but ok.
PoisonSeed
Grin
Corrected. I think this is closer to the truth.
Correct it's personal taste...but to start referring to people with differing opinions in an immature manner and illicit a similar response (which l stand guilty of & l apologize) is disappointing. I would expect this on the SX forum considering the maturity level. If you post over there much & contribute, well....
It's as disappointing as people who argue over a new album, sounding like fucking gods when trying to push through their opinions. I just vent my own disappointment in a different way. In the end, I don't really give a fuck though.
Bryan316
METAL... nuff said!
Ascension
New Metal Member
It was correct the first time. Twisting the statement only fulfills a need that the new release doesn't provide you. Understandable.
PoisonSeed said:It's as disappointing as people who argue over a new album, sounding like fucking gods when trying to push through their opinions. I just vent my own disappointment in a different way. In the end, I don't really give a fuck though.
I'm seriously detecting an inferiority complex here. And, apparently you do give a fuck...your continued response shows a nerve has been struck. So...you do serve a purpose. Just doing our part to help you in this time of need.
So don't worry...SX will have another release in ...oh let's say...4 years.
PoisonSeed
Grin
Oh kay.
I'm seriously detecting an inferiority complex here. And, apparently you do give a fuck...your continued response shows a nerve has been struck. So...you do serve a purpose. Just doing our part to help you in this time of need.
Dear "Ascension", I would be shedding tears if a bunch of anonymous internet users could cause me an inferiority complex. The inferiority complex is for the inferior. Not me. I am a descendant of the vikings. Bow down.
SyXified
Member
Would you kindly try to read what I write rather than just taking it in the most negative way possible? That comment was directly in response to the fact that Poison Seed was complaining that he's sick of hearing griping about the album. There is nothing CLOSE to an implication that I'm trying to be on my high horse about not downloading the album, etc. But I do think I should have the opportunity to voice my opinion on it 2 days after the release without being told that the topic is over and done with. I don't think the gag order should be in effect 2 days after the actual release.
Did I not say explicitly that NO ONE knows exactly how to measure the quality of music. Last I checked, I was still included in the category of EVERYONE. Once again, you've opted to take a simple statement and assume I'm saying it from the most asinine perspective imaginable
If you want to make the claim that art is completely subjective, and all that matters is how it resonates with individuals, you can measure better and worse quite easily. Album Sales. ie, the volume of individuals who like it. Meaning Jessica Simpson is kicking ass, and comparably Symphony X and basically all bands in the genre are not doing so hot.
I would never make that argument, I would say it is objective but extremely complex so we struggle to understand it. It's precisely the same concept as with morality. If you try to define what is morally right as purely in the eye of the beholder then Ted Bundy and Ghandi are on equal standing. There would be no room for rules or truth about morality, it would just be completely undefinable.
But there are a few general rules we establish in either case - we generally say it is wrong to kill others, we also generally say that a song should have emotional strength and be catchy. Once you begin to establish SOME rules, you're obligated to a reality that there ARE rules governing 'good' and 'bad' in either case...it is trying to understand those rules that people dedicate their entire lives to (in either instance).
You have that backwards.
No, they aren't morally wrong, what would morality have to do with it? It's not wrong to write a bad song and not righteous to write a good one. Bad musicians do not inherently go to hell; Steve Vai does not have a free pass to heaven because he's a great guitarist.
Artistically YES they are fricken wrong. If I squiggle all over a canvas it is NOT as good as Starry Night, and if some hypothetical individual perceiver tries to argue otherwise that does not mean he is right because it is his choice - he's wrong and he's an idiot. Now before you fly off the handle again, I'm not calling anyone who likes PL, or likes any album I don't like (or vice versa) for that matter an idiot. But it is NOT just a matter of taste... SOMEONE is right, and SOMEONE is wrong. Problem is there are so many factors that would go into actually qualifying something like that - many of which we haven't even figured out yet - its unlikely anyone will ever know who was right and who was wrong. Still the basic truth remains that if one person says A and the other person says NOT A, they can't BOTH be right.
If all that matters about music is the creators take on it, why should anyone ever share their music with anyone else? If you can honestly say that when you write music you don't care one iota about anyone else's opinion, you should be perfectly content to just make music privately for yourself and listen to it yourself, and that would be the extent of your foray into music. But a quick look at reality would show that clearly people not only want to share their music with others, but want the approval of others. Artists like Symphony X have decided to make their living off of their music - that implies an enormous reliance on the opinion of others. If you were going into business to sell a product, you think about how your customers are going to feel about that product, you can't just start selling something everyone hates and say 'I don't care what you think, I like it'. Commercial bands are SELLING their music - and that means they have to think about public perception. Again, please don't read anything extra into this about PL or SyX, this is purely in response to your claim about music being the product of just the creator's taste, which I disagree with. While a creator choses a genre and style that suits his own musical tastes, at some point when writing he has to consider peoples interpretations. When John Williams writes a score do you think he is considering how the music will effect the audience, or do you think he is just doing whatever the hell he wants? Just stick a polka over Star Wars if that suits his mood? Or would you argue that somehow what Williams does does not qualify as art? How about the entire classical period where music was composed specifically to the tastes of royalty who commissioned the works, in prescribed forms no less? Or check out the recent DT interview with Petrucci where he says outright that he wrote the main lick of The Dark Eternal Night with the intention of having a lick that people could instantly identify and connect with?
Yes it is better or worse than the "pros" - which it seems you are defining as those in the commercial sector who make their art public - it is just not by nature of its location 'better' or 'worse'. It doesn't matter where your art happens to be, or what you happen to call yourself (a pro or a hobbyist) it can all be judged against all other pieces as a collective. There will never be a sculpture that is great in your basement and sucks in an art gallery - it is as good as it is. And just because the individual creator may enjoy his art does not make it 'good' art. If I paint my entire house Avacado green and I personally think it looks great, that does not somehow mean that my perception has altered reality and made it as good as the Sistine Chapel.
You say you as a composer are compelled to reach new heights... just by saying that you are implying that there is a definable 'better' that you are aware of - implying a scale of quality and thereby implying objective and tangible rules that define good, better, and bad. The argument that art is a matter of individual taste logically negates the idea that as a composer you should never be 100% satisfied. If it is purely up to your taste you should be able to be satisfied the second you like what you hear and then you would never have to aspire to anything 'more'. If you spend months writing a song you think is amazing and then someone comes along and shits on it, don't you want to be able to think that that person is wrong? The way we all perceive and approach art implies objectivity - people like to have standards, they like to care, and they like to think that when they say a song is beautiful there is more to it than just their opinion - they want to know they are correct in a real and tangible sense to say that.
Just to reiterate so there is no confusion - I DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO WHAT DEFINES GOOD AND BAD IN ART. We're all here to try to understand that - none of us fully do. But just like in morality, where I certainly do not know the full detail of what 'right' and what 'wrong' are, I do operate (as most people do) on the understanding that the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' exist and are somehow tangible enough that we should at least TRY to understand them. 'Good' and 'Bad' exist in art just the same way, and like in morality there is tons of distention and debate, but that doesn't change the fact that the REASON we care is that we know 'good' and 'bad' in some sense do in fact exist.
SyXified
Member
If the person were actually inferior they could not have an inferiority complex... they would just be correct in their perception of themselves. The complex implies that they are misguided.
J-Dubya 777
It NEVER ends
Sorry, I'm just used to the mostly acerbic posts you make in that other forum.
Inflection is often lost on e-mails, and forum posts. And yes, I'm aware it works both ways....
No, I agree there should be no gag order whatsoever, if he or I don't want to read the posts, then they should just be ignored, and not commented on.
But I LIKE commenting, so lets go......
See response above....
I disagree. I'm trying to keep our discussion on art away from "art as a business" I don't relate to the herd mentality where the more people like/buy something, the better it is(and I'm NOT saying that's what you are implying!). And you are correct, if we look at Sony BMG (or whatever company/label Simpson is on) financial reoprts, I'm sure they are doing better than IOMA in a business/profitability sense. It doesn't make anything "better" because more people like it. IMO, of course.
I guess I believe that there are general rules when it comes to morals, but thats a whole seperate argument altogether. We should probably save that one for a rainy day on a different forum.....
But who is going to get everyone in agreement as to what the rules, no matter how general, are? While even you and I might agree to those general rules, there may be one or a dozen who will disagree with us. That's why I'm saying that we'll NEVER see anything definitive that defines good/bad art or music.
I have a problem with the desecration of religious symbols. NOTHING good ever comes out of that.
I think this is where you and I have our disconnect. Without the qualifying factors, sort of like innocent until proven guilty, I can't call someone wrong, for what they like or dislike musically. I might say "That dude's got some weird tastes" or "That guys fucked in the head" (possibly a definition of "idiot"
) Lets not make the example so drastic. I say Rembrandt is a better artist than Monet. You disagree. Who is right? Who is wrong? I hypothetically (not literally!) ask how can one be "better" than the other? Do we go by auction prices on the paintings? If there are no definitive factors, than we can't definitively call each other right or wrong
I'm really not trying to be a dick, I just am trying to explain my perspective on things, no matter how skewed you might declare them.
You bring up a good good point about royalty dictating during the classical period, but like I said, once you combine business & art, I think motivations change. I'm NOT saying that commerical music doesn't qualify as "art", nor are the creators of such music any more, or less, artists than those who don't. I'm just saying there's extra baggage involved. I'd actually like to hear Williams throw a polka over anything...
When I say not to be satisfied 100%, that is based on ones own limits/goals they set for themselves, NOT comparing them to everything else out there.
Because of the lack of quantifying, the person who shits on my song I wouldn't consider them "wrong", in a black/white sense. I think this where we aren't seeing eye to eye. I'm perceiving that your right/wrong good/bad is black & white, and not susceptible to any "wiggle room". Now, in this follow up post, you have clarified that may not be the case, and that is what we are striving towards? Please correct that if I'm wrong. IMO, I don't think you or I will ever be able to definitively agree or prove what is good or bad. and that's pretty much what I've been trying to say since the beginning.
Agreed for the most part, I just can't fathom the laws that will dictate good/bad, and won't label art/music that way unless it's from my perspective, or IMO. I have my own personal standards that I adhere to, as does everybody else. We all have our own opinions on what is good/bad. Thanks for the reply, and sorry to those who read through all this and think we're both fucked in the head!
PoisonSeed
Grin
If the person were actually inferior they could not have an inferiority complex... they would just be correct in their perception of themselves. The complex implies that they are misguided.
Not a valid point you perplexed individual. A mentally inferior being faces a difficulty in comprehending his inferiority. Thus, the being fails to recognise his actual state of existence which is, without doubt, inferior. As is the case with you, poor man.
Tess
Member
Ascension
New Metal Member
Well...this explains alot then. l'm glad you clarified your position in the world. Yngwie Malmsteen is a viking too. Romeo wants to be a viking. I would be a viking too, but l don't have one of those goofy helmets with the horns on it. :Smug:
Similar threads
