ROFL. And Big3 comes from left field with the burn.

Bowie Bowie Bowie! Heaps better than smelliot smith!

I read a post on this forum (posted by a mod) that said about a Tool album (which one I can't remember, a new one I think) that if you didn't think it was a masterpiece then you hadn't listened to it enough. Well, in that same vein of stupidity, that can apply to Bowie!

So, If you don't vote for Bowie, you just havn't listened to him enough! Withdraw your misguided votes and point them to Bowie!

BOWIE WINS!

Elliott!

That means a lot coming from you crowe. I always appreciate when my comments go on noticed.

Theres one elliott smith thread...

People fail at catching sarcasm.

It seems you have! :tramp:

I really wanna see Inuzaka Skysword's reply to this.

I am, because that post bothers me.

Mozart is one of the most versatile composers ever, try writing a sonata then an opera then a string quintet, its ****ing hard, much, much harder than anything Elliott Smith has ever done.

To say Mozart is not an amazing musician is a extremely naive thing to do, no offense, I mean just because he was doesn't play the hip indie music that all the kids are listening to doesn't mean he wasn't a good musician, he just lived about 250 years ago.

He didn't write lyrics or sing!

Ooo. Gotcha there.

I respect classical, it's got some wonderful pieces, but it doesn't mean we should hold classical composers above all else. They were just the style at the time.

I was going by Inuzaka's standards of amazing.

But it doesn't mean we should hold classical composers below everyone else either.

well don't.

I don't but he was saying Mozart was amazing but Mozart doesn't fit up to his standards so I pointed it out.

No you weren't. That is only one standard and was the only one mentioned because it was relevent to the thread.

What are these other standards then?

Well my criteria are:

Technicality (no clue if that is a word.)
Originality
Non-recycling (doesn't recycle their sound through albums.)
Influence on other bands

and one other thing I can't think of atm.

I don't comprehend this criteria. If it was amazing the first time and they did it again just as good the second time why wouldn't it be amazing the second time?

I think Inuzuka Skysword needs to look up the definition of amazing.

I don't like hearing the same album sound twice. It gets really annoying and boring. Now that doesn't mean you can't expand on the sound, but having the same sound for three albums is just terrible.

But if its amazing the first time how would it be annoying the second time? Are you amazed by annoying music?

See I listen to a album until I pretty much wear it out, well at least most of the time. If it is amazing the first time then I am going to be sick of it the second time. Plus bands shouldn't be sitting in the same musical genre for eternity.

The irony slays.

.......................V_V

It was a exaggerated way to describe it. In other words, I don't like it when a band just keeps making the same sound. They should =expand on the sound at least.

But if it was amazing the first time...

The funnypart is Elliott sounds completely different on his first album which is basically acoustic versions of songs for his band Heatmiser that didn't work out to his last album which is experimental full band singer/songwriter stuff and Bright Eyes when from screamy acoustic music to alt-country. So going by that very bizarre standard they both fall under the amazing criteria.

Actually thinking about it, theirs a surprising amount of pop acts who have gone from one thing to another frequently. Madonna for one.

I also don't think how technical something is should come into how amazing it is at all, whats wrong with simpler music? That statement was very ignorant, you basically dismiss off entire genres of music with it that can't be amazing just because they don't have boring instrumental solos.

I never descibed how much of one thing they had to be. Those are just what I judge a band on.

And all that pop like Madonna and stuff is unoriginal.

And btw you are judging both Elliott and Bright Eyes on one part of my criteria, which is not how you are supposed to do it.

lol @ saying Elliott and Connor sound the same on every record

Your list of standards us a pretty poor one, let me list some important artists and see if they fit up to it.

Bob Dylan:
Technicality: Nope.
Originality: Nope
Non-recycling: Eh, he switched it up a bit but still repeated the same sound a few times:
Influence on other bands: Yes.

the Ramones:
Technicality: Nope.
Originality: Nope
Non-recycling: Other then End of the Century they played the same thing their entire career.
Influence on other bands: Yes.

Nick Drake:
Technicality: Nope.
Originality: Sort of
Non-recycling: With the exception of bryter layter which he didn't even like much, he didn't really. So thats a sort of.
Influence on other bands: Yes.

I could go on, but i'm going to split now.

there's exceptions to every rule.
Elliott is not one.
But I don't want to argue, so i'm done.

WHAT!? Crowquill! This is what I'm talking about man. It's nice that you can just "nope, dylan wasn't original at all" back it up! BACK IT UP! Now I hope you don't actually believe what you just said- I hope you were throwing away your own knowledge to make a point. Because the "Nope" by originality in reference to Dylan is one of the most musically ignorant statements I have ever, ever read.

Listen to Woody Guthrie.

ROFL that doesn't make Bob Dylan unoriginal. Is that your back up!? Because he was influenced (albeit majorly) by Guthrie? Are you saying that Dylan didn't develop his own voice? I'm not talking about voice as in the sound that came out of him - I'm talking about his own way of seeing the world, speaking out for the things he believed in? His lyrics are the standards in which other lyricists are compared to. Do you think that happened because he was unoriginal? Dylan goes from a political album to an introspective album and then he goes electric when it was almost certain suicide for him to do so? His constant reinvention and his timelessness certainly take care of the Non-Recycling category. He even won the Kennedy Center Honors award as a rock star (the FIRST to do so) in 1997... this award, if you don't know about it, is considered the nation's highest award for artistic excellence. There is so much more to say - but I am lazy. But I guess you could go read one of the many books about Dylan and his work. I guess if you can make it into Harvard or Stanford you can take the class about Dylan that they currently offer. I guess if you do a quick search on google and maybe learn about something before you make an off the cuff statement that compromises the ability for people who know about music to take you seriously.

Listen to Woodie Guthrie? That was it?

Give me a break.

I've read the Bob Dylan Chronicles, I don't see how I can be told off for making cuff statements when you treat it like I heard Mr. Tambourine Man on the radio and thats all I know about Dylan.

In volume 1. he talks about his albums, and he never once aimed to be original he aimed to make folk music and guess who he tried to sound like as much as possible? Woody Guthrie, he even admits it. He was criticized by some local scenester for it and was shown some album by Jack Elliott (not rambling) who was a another folk artist who did exactly what Guthrie did but 'better', and then Dylan started sounding like that. Thats not super original is it?

Anyway that post was more meant to prove the point that Inuzaka's standards of amazing were flawed which seemed to be able to apply well to certain genres but not to others.