JARG

Did you add the drums after you recorded the other parts, or did you record to the drums?

That is all.

Making progress! In addition to Elvis Costello, I hear a bit of Pete Townsend in your voice. Do you hear that, too?

Bummer indeed. Well, at least he got a lot of free promotion in the thread.

How has playing violin affected his guitar playing and vice versa?

Just remember that anything remotely “liberal” or Democrat Party is considered “not holding up to scrutiny” as you say and anything that a right wing member posts is not only righteous but obvious by default. Anyone whose viewpoint cannot be understood or empathised with is considered trolling. If you criticise Christianity (or try to place it in an historical perspective) or libertarians you can only be trolling. Be wary of the keyboard warriors that call you things that they would never say to your face but insist you are a keyboard warrior when you suggest you’d knock them out if they did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boMrTKZuvaQ I didn’t know that anyone other than Zevon recorded this song, though I knew he and Ronstadt had a close working relationship. The Zevon version is much better. I like that version better but I felt this version better exemplified the infantile whinyness of whatever it was that I was responding to. Never heard of this song before now. Zevon's voice always struck me as a "novelty song," voice, whereas Ronstadt is one of the all time greats. Put me down for Linda's. I just watched a documentary about her. Really good. Have you heard anything by him other than Werewolves of London? Lawyers, Guns, and Money is the only other one I've heard. He is a really funny and insightful story teller in his songs. He definitely has his “novelty” songs like “Excitable Boy”, “Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner” or “Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead”, but he has much more nuanced stories in Hasten Down the Wind, Mohammed’s Radio, and Carmelita. He’s really great if you don’t mind the voice...I actually like it, but I like Geddy Lee and Bob Dylan, so... Yeah, I'm not bugged by his voice at all. It totally works for him.

Just remember that anything remotely “liberal” or Democrat Party is considered “not holding up to scrutiny” as you say and anything that a right wing member posts is not only righteous but obvious by default. Anyone whose viewpoint cannot be understood or empathised with is considered trolling. If you criticise Christianity (or try to place it in an historical perspective) or libertarians you can only be trolling. Be wary of the keyboard warriors that call you things that they would never say to your face but insist you are a keyboard warrior when you suggest you’d knock them out if they did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boMrTKZuvaQ I didn’t know that anyone other than Zevon recorded this song, though I knew he and Ronstadt had a close working relationship. The Zevon version is much better. I like that version better but I felt this version better exemplified the infantile whinyness of whatever it was that I was responding to. Never heard of this song before now. Zevon's voice always struck me as a "novelty song," voice, whereas Ronstadt is one of the all time greats. Put me down for Linda's. I just watched a documentary about her. Really good. Have you heard anything by him other than Werewolves of London? Lawyers, Guns, and Money is the only other one I've heard.

Same. I have no interest in seeing anyone's signatures (even mine). You lair! I know I was in your signature on CP for awhile. Now I only post with the cell phone so I don't see a thing. Have you seen some of the marquis that pass for signatures here? There are some signatures that are longer than the threads you find them in.

Same. I have no interest in seeing anyone's signatures (even mine).

A flawed return to form, but a welcome return nonetheless.

Hilarious!

10/10 for creativity! What might be a cool thing to try is to have a couple of tracks for the main vox. As it is now, you're having to cut some words just a tiny bit short because you're running out of breath. That may be the way you like it, but if not and you had two tracks to pick up when you left off, the effect could be cool.

A cynic might say the whole trend is simply making a profit off pretending to like people's favorite songs. And he wouldn't be far off. He'd be spot-on in most cases. Reaction channels are frequently about building up a big enough subscriber base to monetize the channel. Edited for clarity.

Seems that way. The answer is NRVOUS. OK, here's an easier one: What did Father Brown grind to splinters beneath his feet?

I was wondering what that meant; now it makes sense. I have no worthwhile guess. But now I am thinking about Mia Sara. You're welcome. :)

Forget I mentioned the "faux" part. In the movie, it's supposed to be an extremely rare Ferrari, but in reality it's a mock-up of an extremely rare Ferarri.

Right, you're wrong! :lol:

Nyet

I Mother Earth? Winner! Go! OK, but let's drop the "reasonably able to deduce rule", cuz you broke it with your first question (until you gave the clue). What are the letters on the license plate on Mr. Frye's faux Ferrari in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off?

I Mother Earth?

It was ejected by a volcano? ;)

He does have excellent pitch. If i'm not mistaken, the last chord played on the classical is an F, which he seems to have heard as a C, but I think his ear may have been tricked by the C9 chord that comes in on the electric.

I'm still of the mind that it came down to marketing and societal expectations. Namely people didn't expect women to be fans of loud rock music, so they didn't market it to them. OK, but if Rush was marketed in such a way as to appeal to males more than females, that suggests that there is something about Rush that could be marketed in such a way, which then suggests that gender does play a role. Sure, so with Rush that thing is that they were a loud heavy progressive rock band in the 70s, and people tended to expect that men would enjoy those qualities in music more than women. Probably correctly so, generally speaking. That assumption was (and may still be) likely generally true, particularly if you're talking about young men who are awash in testosterone. The "in your face" quality of early Rush and the themes of rebellion against authority certainly hit me in the right spot when I was awash with testosterone. My girlfriend in HS certainly tolerated my love of Rush, but I know she didn't share it. The music was too aggressive for her and she couldn't really relate to the lyrical themes -- she didn't find "herself" in those sorts of Rush songs, whereas I did. Was she an anomalous female? I don't think she was. I think she was very representative of her gender at that age. So you're saying you think it's linked to biology. That testosterone drives men to like more aggressive music and estrogen drives women to like less aggressive music. I'm not going to discount this possibility, but I do think it's still possible (even likely) that societal expectations cause people to decide they don't or do like certain things at a young age not because they naturally feel any way about them, but because they're told they're supposed to feel certain ways about them. Let's assume it's 1976 and you're an advertising exec for Mercury. How would you market Rush to appeal to females? To males?

I'm still of the mind that it came down to marketing and societal expectations. Namely people didn't expect women to be fans of loud rock music, so they didn't market it to them. OK, but if Rush was marketed in such a way as to appeal to males more than females, that suggests that there is something about Rush that could be marketed in such a way, which then suggests that gender does play a role. Sure, so with Rush that thing is that they were a loud heavy progressive rock band in the 70s, and people tended to expect that men would enjoy those qualities in music more than women. Probably correctly so, generally speaking. That assumption was (and may still be) likely generally true, particularly if you're talking about young men who are awash in testosterone. The "in your face" quality of early Rush and the themes of rebellion against authority certainly hit me in the right spot when I was awash with testosterone. My girlfriend in HS certainly tolerated my love of Rush, but I know she didn't share it. The music was too aggressive for her and she couldn't really relate to the lyrical themes -- she didn't find "herself" in those sorts of Rush songs, whereas I did. Was she an anomalous female? I don't think she was. I think she was very representative of her gender at that age.

I'm still of the mind that it came down to marketing and societal expectations. Namely people didn't expect women to be fans of loud rock music, so they didn't market it to them. OK, but if Rush was marketed in such a way as to appeal to males more than females, that suggests that there is something about Rush that could be marketed in such a way, which then suggests that gender does play a role.