exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Forget it. He's just an entry-level, brainstem-only type troll.
Not worth feeding. (I tried to tempt him him with tasty morsels of the chemistry he professed to know, but it didn't work.)
You lost
- Thread starter Mr. G
- Start date
Not worth feeding. (I tried to tempt him him with tasty morsels of the chemistry he professed to know, but it didn't work.)You weren't worthy.Forget it. He's just an entry-level, brainstem-only type troll.
A little more creativity could have gotten you somewhere else.
Just to be up front, once again;
You folks don't like folks like me, but if you never associate with folks like me you'll never have associated with folks like me. You'll only have spent your stuff in your own proximity.
I tolerate y'all to the extent I'm thinking I'm doing a worthy effort to educate.
Sometimes I worry.
You folks don't like folks like me, but if you never associate with folks like me you'll never have associated with folks like me. You'll only have spent your stuff in your own proximity.
I tolerate y'all to the extent I'm thinking I'm doing a worthy effort to educate.
Sometimes I worry.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Sure. What would he know right? I would check out the history and entry requirements for the strongest university on the planet before making statements like that. Especially now Trump has decided to demolish science the US.
I will no longer be feeding your troll bowl.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Last edited:
Mr. G:
I see you've been busy piddling over all the active threads. Is this a cry for help, or just a cry for attention?
It looks like you've worked yourself up to the point where you have decided to make the customary Grand Trampling Exit from sciforums.
Is this your idea of going out with a bang?
Since this current thread is your thread, and because it says so much about who you are these days, I'm not going to do any cleaning on this one. It's good that our readers get to see exactly who you are, I think. Don't you agree?
Let's see what's comprehensible in your latest posts...
Do you feel like you've found your people by lining up as a MAGA shill? If so, then good luck to you. The buyer's remorse will come later. Meanwhile, y'all have fun finding people to insult. You'll end up a bitter old man who substitutes mutual grounching with similarly bitter old men for actual enjoyment, if you're not already there. It's all a bit hollow, don't you think?
I see you've been busy piddling over all the active threads. Is this a cry for help, or just a cry for attention?
It looks like you've worked yourself up to the point where you have decided to make the customary Grand Trampling Exit from sciforums.
Is this your idea of going out with a bang?
Since this current thread is your thread, and because it says so much about who you are these days, I'm not going to do any cleaning on this one. It's good that our readers get to see exactly who you are, I think. Don't you agree?
Let's see what's comprehensible in your latest posts...
It's all a bit puerile, don't you think, Mr. G? Why didn't you outgrow this sort of behaviour? Are you regressing in your old age, perhaps? If so, I applaud your decision to quit, before you can't tell that you're losing your shit.
Nobody likes antisocial grandstanders, Mr. G.
Do you feel like you've found your people by lining up as a MAGA shill? If so, then good luck to you. The buyer's remorse will come later. Meanwhile, y'all have fun finding people to insult. You'll end up a bitter old man who substitutes mutual grounching with similarly bitter old men for actual enjoyment, if you're not already there. It's all a bit hollow, don't you think?
Surely, that's not what you're thinking. And what happened to the Grand Trampling Exit? Don't you think you should at least try for some consistency?
Personally, I think the thread was working as lot better when we were debating the merits of different eras of Pink Floyd.
To recap my claims:
1966-1968: Good. Especially when factoring in the singles, and most especially, those produced by Mr Joe Boyd ("See Emily Play" and "Arnold Layne").
1969-1972: Personally, I think this was their strongest period--but they mostly come across well in a live context, their studio work of the time suffers from some incomprehensible overproduction and a tendency towards shorter tracks. Fortunately, there are well over 100 documents of live performances from this era, and a few dozen of them are soundboard or EX or EX- audience recordings. Tunes like "Fat Old Sun" and "Cymbaline" are rippers when they are allowed to roam, not to mention the extended earlier pieces, as found on the first record of Ummagumma.
1973-1979: I've got mixed feelings here. Wish You Were Here and Animals are great; Dark Side... and The Wall, especially--not so much. Richard Wright was, as his name suggests, an excellent writer, and he was thoroughly sidelined during this period. And sometimes Roger Waters works best when he's simply stomping and scowling about the stage. Not that I don't enjoy many of his rants.
The Wall is my favourite. DSOTM is great as well. But then I also like Waters' solo albums like Amused to Death, and Radio Kaos. Sorry.
The other PF albums are still good, and I definitely favour the 73-79 rather than earlier. But I wouldn't turn any off if they were playing.
Their later stuff is not bad (MLOR, and DB), either, but almost a pastiche of, or an homage to, what has gone before rather than anything too noteworthy. And I do find Waters more to my taste than Gilmour. Both good, and even better when combined, though.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I liked Dark Side at the time but it always slightly bothered me that it seemed a bit too - polished. I sort wondered if they were selling out, in some nebulous way.
But you know there's a voiceover in the background saying "I've been mad for fucking years"? I misheard that as "Something wrong with the fucking gears" - perhaps an understandable mistake for an Englishman, in that era of terrible 1970s cars......
I like DSOTM and The Wall (though far less so), but I've always felt that Waters took the cynicism with the latter a step too far. He applies it to the music, as well as the lyrics--as though it were engineered to elicit certain responses. Consider the disco beat in "Another brick in the wall": it sounds good and it actually works within the song, but it just seems so... calculated. And Nick Mason is just naturally a drummer who lags a bit--it sounds as though that beat was forced upon him.The Wall is my favourite. DSOTM is great as well. But then I also like Waters' solo albums like Amused to Death, and Radio Kaos. Sorry.
The other PF albums are still good, and I definitely favour the 73-79 rather than earlier. But I wouldn't turn any off if they were playing.
Their later stuff is not bad (MLOR, and DB), either, but almost a pastiche of, or an homage to, what has gone before rather than anything too noteworthy. And I do find Waters more to my taste than Gilmour. Both good, and even better when combined, though.
The later, post-Waters albums do sound very much a pastiche of peak Floyd. They have moments, but they sound more an obligation than anything. The Final Cut is essentially a Waters solo album, with a bit of Nick Mason and David Gilmour thrown in; though some of the tunes are good and I think that "Two suns in the sunset" is fantastic.
Yes. Overly polished and produced has long been anathema to me. I've got nothing against touching things up a bit or fixing egregious errors--
A common misconception about classical recordings is that they are sans overdubs. They absolutely are not without edits! I mentioned the relatively obscure English composer, Khaikhosru Sorabji, above (or maybe in that other thread). There are basically two guys who perform his insanely difficult piano pieces, and his fans are invariably either fans of the one or the other. Countless long threads on the internets with people ripping apart this guy's or that guy's performance, saying it's full of flubbed notes and all that. Bullshit! They've been meticulously editing classical recordings since the 1950s, and there simply ain't no "errors" of that nature. People are just silly.
--but removing all spontaneity from recordings is a grave misstep imho.
These voiceovers and other inserts are essentially what saves DSOTM for me. And I would kill for Land Rover Series II, though I probably need to specify not literally here for contractual reasons.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I’ve enjoyed the discovery that I can play live performances from YouTube through my stereo system and screen monitor(I don’t have a TV), using a feed from the iPad. Things like that Christmas Oratorio performance I posted a while back really come alive with a good sound system and being able to see the performers.
(I’ve also come across a rather good 1970s TV series called “Callan” with Edward Woodward, which is good played through the same system, but that’s another story)
The challenge with streaming is finding recordings that are the appropriate sample rate/bit depth (ideally, 44.1khz/16 bit). Music bootleggers have long been fastidious about lineage of recordings--mics and recording equipment and all that are certainly important details, but by far the most important details (especially in the digital era, and doubly so in the streaming era) are the bit rates (sr x bd)! Back in the day, it was practically criminal to burn a bunch of, say, 320 kbps mp3s to a compact disc, which generally suggests a much higher rate.
That said, despite what many an audiophile will claim, I think it virtually impossible to distinguish anything beyond that 320 kbps rate (or it's approx. equivalent in another format). You only really need the very high rates--96 khz/24 bit--if you're editing and working with stems you intend to manipulate in some fashion, or if you're doing science-y stuff. Still, I've come across stuff on YouTube that is very clearly sourced from "compromised" data and it's infuriating. But for the most part, if it was uploaded within the past 8 to 10 years, you're probably good.
I don't think he ever topped his performance in The Wicker Man--that guy was pretty convincing.
Speaking of allegedly flawed performances, here's a Dutch pianist I discovered some years ago playing Satie in a rather unconventional manner--very sllloowly and somewhat disjointed at times. I've radically altered my own playing style for playing the Gnossiennes since hearing this guy:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes I haven’t seen The Wicker Man but Woodward was a class actor.
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
I like Satie, and his title choices were often whimsical - there's one called True Flabby Preludes for a Dog. I have only played his famous Gymnopedie on the pf - there's a title that probably your agent would talk you out of these days. Simpler times those were.
You should try his Gnossiennes--slightly more rhythmically complex, but stylistically very similar otherwise. They're a bit like Bach's Inventions and Bartok's Microkosmos, in that they're fun to play, but you also feel like you're learning some valuable life skills at the same time. (Maybe even a bit like "teaching" history using real Nazi flags--good fun for all!)
If the end result elicits the intended response, what's the issue? Is it any less meaningful or valid just because it was deliberate, and engineered rather than just naturally played (if they are the only alternatives?)?
Now, I'm not a musician, and maybe my ignorance in that direction has meant my ears are less fussy (and I don't mean that disparagingly, but in the ignorance is bliss way). Heck, I don't even really listen to lyrics. I hear the voice, but to me it's just an instrument. The lyrics just aren't important. I'm all for interesting vocals, something distinct, which both Waters and Gilmore have. So they could be singing the phone book and it would barely, if at all, affect my enjoyment. Maybe the beats of the consonants would be in the wrong place, but otherwise....
That said, I do prefer live versions, but I think that's more for the spacing (?) of the sound, rather than the less engineered production, and more organic rendition.
And my ears aren't up to telling whether a drummer lags or drives. Side by side I could probably tell (I have a feeling Roger Taylor of Queen drives rather than lags, but that maybe just because it is something I've heard about him rather than recognise. Yes, I'm that much of a philistine!
)
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes my son played that on our piano upstairs. Seems years ago.
For me, Meddle through Animals is prime Floyd. Then again, I saw them on the Animals tour. I was introduced to them via the KQED broadcast and the Pompeii movie, which I still enjoy. I love The Final Cut, but think of it as a Roger Waters LP. Never really explored the Syd era stuff.