Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Herr_Reitz

Off Topic Music Sub forum - Metal Sultans of Swing

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,818
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,268 posts

I think it might be nice to add a sub forum for Music... maybe?

 

This is... "interesting"...

 

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,044
Alpha Tester
4,701 posts
2,401 battles

I guess we can't be friends then. Anyone who thinks one of the best songs ever needs to have a metal version of it made doesn't understand why the original is so amazing.

 

Because you and the people who made that blasphemy don't seem to get it, this is why it's so perfect.

  • The minimalism. Mark Knopfler's licks, for the most part, are short and sweet, his vocals are quiet and spoken just as much as they are sung, and the overall sound is quite nuanced with a light drum beat and a groovy little bassline, but it all plays into the atmosphere the song is creating. It's about a quiet little band playing in a quiet little place on a rainy night in the city and you can feel it all the way through.
  • The guitar work. Mark Knopfler is a virtuoso who knows how to get incredible sounds out of a guitar without playing long and loud like some others. Like what David Gilmour did with Pink Floyd, less is more with Knopfler's guitar work. However, when he does cut loose and go for something longer, it's still incredible because of his unique finger-picking style.
  • The lyrics. This is a simple song at its core, and it highlights Mark Knopfler's greatest lyrical strength; His ability to write songs from perspectives that you may not have thought much about (also see: Money For Nothing, Speedway at Nazareth, Song For Sonny Liston, Done With Bonaparte). This song looks at that local band that plays in the pub on weekends, the one made up not of ambitious, skint-broke kids who are in it to go big and get the fortune and glory, but instead the middle-aged guys with jobs and families who are up on stage because they enjoy it. They don't need to be famous or even liked; They just want to play their music and share the company of their bandmates and friends. That is music in its purest form, made simply for music's own sake and simply because you want to, regardless of whether or not it makes you successful.
  • It's impact on music. In 1978 when this song first came out, there were basically only two genres of music that anyone cared about: Punk and disco. Imagine then, the astonishment that the public felt when a song firmly planted in roots and folk rock with a little bit of country and the blues thrown in became an international hit. It threw everyone for a curveball and broke up the monotony in popular music at the time, allowing for other musicians and their styles to join in the fray as well.

 

In summary, Sultans of Swing is a masterpiece of music as it is, and is probably the worst possible song to have a metal version made of it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,449
[HINON]
Supertester
18,912 posts
12,446 battles
26 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

and is probably the worst possible song to have a metal version made of it.

tC5uumk.png

Guess you would consider this an insult to everything you stand for as well:

Here, allow me to make your ears bleed:

Gonna preach at me as well, presenting opinion as fact because you don't like something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,547 posts
9,804 battles
28 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

I guess we can't be friends then. Anyone who thinks one of the best songs ever needs to have a metal version of it made doesn't understand why the original is so amazing.

In summary, Sultans of Swing is a masterpiece of music as it is, and is probably the worst possible song to have a metal version made of it.

I agree. Why do people think that every classic rock song needs to be re-made? There's a reason why they have become "classic" and survived all these decades. Also quite pathetic that newer artist these days don't have the creativity nor the talent to put out original work. This explains why "classic" songs from this millennium are few and far in-between.  We now live in a disposable society. A hit song today is forgotten a week later. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
127
[WDS]
Members
344 posts
6,881 battles
1 hour ago, Herr_Reitz said:

I think it might be nice to add a sub forum for Music... maybe?

 

This is... "interesting"...

 

I kind of liked it , its good to see different takes on classics . Doesn't mean its better its just different . Also some of the most talented and greatest bands ever have done covers of other bands songs and had big hits you can name tons of them so that's a ridiculous statement .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[BNKR]
Members
1,302 posts
681 battles

Don't have the opportunity to listen right now, but I'm surprised at the song choice.  Sultans of Swing doesn't come to mind at all when I think of songs that would make good metal covers.  I'll withhold judgement until I can listen to it, however.  Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,449
[HINON]
Supertester
18,912 posts
12,446 battles
40 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

I agree. Why do people think that every classic rock song needs to be re-made? There's a reason why they have become "classic" and survived all these decades. Also quite pathetic that newer artist these days don't have the creativity nor the talent to put out original work. This explains why "classic" songs from this millennium are few and far in-between.  We now live in a disposable society. A hit song today is forgotten a week later. 

1) Because they want to honor the old song by making their own version

2) Just because a song is covered doesn't diminish the old song nor causes it to cease to exist

3) Gross overgeneralization, there are tons of modern bands that create their own original work and do it well

4) Yeah don't go around acting like everything in the old days was solid gold, 99% of what came out then was crap and is totally forgotten, 'classic' songs came by once every few years

5) Nostalgia's a female dog, innit.

6) The pop charts cater to the lowest common denominator, if you want to hear properly good music that is not pre-produced bite-sized regurgitated crap, listen to music outside of the pop charts. This was true then, it's true now.

7) Many of what are considered 'timeless classics' are nothing but covers themselves. House of the Rising Sun, Nothing Compares 2 U, Aretha Franklin's Respect, Girls Just Want to Have Fun, Therapy?'s Diane, Killing Me Softly, Bette Davis Eyes, Tainted Love, Red Red Wine, etc ... Covering other people's works is nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,818
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,268 posts

I think you might be surprised... I've looked through other videos of his... guy's got some talent for sure... multi-instrument capabilities at a very respective level of performing. He seems - to me - to add a bit of mostly subtle humor to his videos too. His "guests" were worth a listen too, each on their own channels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
127
[WDS]
Members
344 posts
6,881 battles
13 minutes ago, Herr_Reitz said:

I think you might be surprised... I've looked through other videos of his... guy's got some talent for sure... multi-instrument capabilities at a very respective level of performing. He seems - to me - to add a bit of mostly subtle humor to his videos too. His "guests" were worth a listen too, each on their own channels. 

Agreed anyone who can play multi instruments at very respectable level is far from talentless . I never saw him or her before but if u can put together a video like that in your garage playing all the instruments you must have some talent . Everyone has to start some were . Don't forget they mocked many a great artist before they got famous and then all those people jumped on the bandwagon and said they always loved them .

Edited by clammboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,547 posts
9,804 battles
19 minutes ago, Lert said:

1) Because they want to honor the old song by making their own version

2) Just because a song is covered doesn't diminish the old song nor causes it to cease to exist

3) Gross overgeneralization, there are tons of modern bands that create their own original work and do it well

4) Yeah don't go around acting like everything in the old days was solid gold, 99% of what came out then was crap and is totally forgotten, 'classic' songs came by once every few years

5) Nostalgia's a female dog, innit.

6) The pop charts cater to the lowest common denominator, if you want to hear properly good music that is not pre-produced bite-sized regurgitated crap, listen to music outside of the pop charts. This was true then, it's true now.

7) Many of what are considered 'timeless classics' are nothing but covers themselves. House of the Rising Sun, Nothing Compares 2 U, Aretha Franklin's Respect, Girls Just Want to Have Fun, Therapy?'s Diane, Killing Me Softly, Bette Davis Eyes, Tainted Love, Red Red Wine, etc ... Covering other people's works is nothing new.


Yeah, sure. and I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.  Musical bands back when I was growing up were made up of artists that could play multiple instruments. You make such a big deal of it because it's a rarity these days. Most musicians were classically trained. This is why a group of three could put out a sound that sounded like an eight piece band. Better yet, they could play it all live without lip-singing or pre-recorded tracks. 
Even my kids can barely think of a half dozen songs that they can remember from a few years ago. Preach to the choir but it is what it is.  The sad truth is that just about everything disposable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,449
[HINON]
Supertester
18,912 posts
12,446 battles
16 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Yeah, sure. and I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.  Musical bands back when I was growing up were made up of artists that could play multiple instruments. You make such a big deal of it because it's a rarity these days. Most musicians were classically trained. This is why a group of three could put out a sound that sounded like an eight piece band. Better yet, they could play it all live without lip-singing or pre-recorded tracks. 
Even my kids can barely think of a half dozen songs that they can remember from a few years ago. Preach to the choir but it is what it is.  The sad truth is that just about everything disposable.

"It was so much better in the olden days" is what literally every generation in the history of pop music has said. Again, you're only looking at the pop charts. Look beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,547 posts
9,804 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

"It was so much better in the olden days" is what literally every generation in the history of pop music has said. Again, you're only looking at the pop charts. Look beyond.

You love to use clichés instead referring to facts and data. I guess that's your thing. I live in reality and facts are what they are:  significantly more music groups/artist in the 60, 70s or 80s created more original works that have stayed on the charts  for longer periods of time and have become classics than any between 2000 - 2018.
I'm not saying there aren't any talented musicians these days. Just far fewer that are classically trained in multiple instruments and who can perform better live than in studio,
It is what it is. Perhaps it's due to the internet, who knows. Argue all you want.

Edited by STINKWEED_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,449
[HINON]
Supertester
18,912 posts
12,446 battles
28 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

I'm not saying there aren't any talented musicians these days. Just far fewer that are classically trained in multiple instruments and who can perform better live than in studio,

Except that's not what you said. This ^ I agree with. This v I don't.

2 hours ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Also quite pathetic that newer artist these days don't have the creativity nor the talent to put out original work.

And even then, while I agree in general with the first sentiment, it has a 'but'. Because of the internet and how easy it has become to self-publish on platforms like youtube there are I believe far, far more artists with talent and original work than back in 'the olden' days. And it's this overwhelming supply that's part of the problem, along with the ever growing instant-gratification culture of youth over the past few decades. Modern pop music (pop as in 'popular', pop chart topping) is pre-produced, bite-sized, easily digested, designed-by-comittee to sell a few thousand singles and then be forgotten to make space for the next one. Listeners nowadays don't have the patience to actually listen to music that is challenging to listen to, takes a while to fully sink in.

So, it is my belief that there's not a shortage of talented, actual-instrument-playing artists out there, but a shortage of patience in the listening audience. 'They' just want the next fad, live fast, consume and throw away. Hence the presence of so much design-by-comittee throwaway pre-produced bite-sized crap in the pop charts.

The talented musicians are there. People just aren't giving them enough of a chance, because it's not easy enough to listen to. It's more of an audience problem than an artist problem. But don't pretend that covers are a 'now' thing. Artists have been covering each other ever since the advent of pop music.

I'll put some links to some of my favorite music in a spoiler, as not to pollute the thread.

Spoiler

Dutch prog artist Arjen Lucassen wrote this and plays everything on this track except the drums.

 

Another Arjen Lucassen song.

 

What I consider a modern timeless classic. A 2008 song, performed live in 2012 with then temp vocalist Floor Jansen. She absolutely NAILS it, the climax leaves me breathless. She's since joined the band for real.

 

Even electro can be done right. One might argue Carpenter Brut isn't 'playing an instrument', but I would counter argue that it takes a lot of talent to produce something like this as well, just talent of a different kind.

 

But then, even a cover isn't so bad when it's done with talent and passion, and in that performer's own style. "Leave me! Leave me to do my own thing! Leave me! I've done it this way!"

 

The internet is full of talented multi-instrument performer that just don't get a chance with the instant gratification obsessed youth nowadays that just want bite-sized crap to chew up and crap out. Like Malukah:

 

PS: My abhorrence of pre-produced, bite-sized tin-foil-wrapped pieces of excrement is why I eschew the pop charts and find my musical entertainment mostly in rock and metal music, perhaps the most honest genre there is. Most of the bands I listen to the vast majority of people will not have heard of. Does that make a hipster? Perhaps. I honestly don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
127
[WDS]
Members
344 posts
6,881 battles
4 hours ago, STINKWEED_ said:


Yeah, sure. and I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.  Musical bands back when I was growing up were made up of artists that could play multiple instruments. You make such a big deal of it because it's a rarity these days. Most musicians were classically trained. This is why a group of three could put out a sound that sounded like an eight piece band. Better yet, they could play it all live without lip-singing or pre-recorded tracks. 
Even my kids can barely think of a half dozen songs that they can remember from a few years ago. Preach to the choir but it is what it is.  The sad truth is that just about everything disposable.

 

Stink I must respectfully disagree back in the day only studio musicians were classically trained and were brought in on lots of bands recording sessions because band members couldn't play well enough . Also there was plenty of lip syncing going on in the 50's and 60's that's were it all started . Things are never going to stay the same , first people loved Bing Crosby hated Sinatra than people loved Sinatra hated Elvis than people loved Elvis hated the Beatles than people loved the Beatles hated the Clash than people loved the Clash hated Rap it goes on and on and on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,547 posts
9,804 battles
47 minutes ago, clammboy said:

Stink I must respectfully disagree back in the day only studio musicians were classically trained and were brought in on lots of bands recording sessions because band members couldn't play well enough . Also there was plenty of lip syncing going on in the 50's and 60's that's were it all started . Things are never going to stay the same , first people loved Bing Crosby hated Sinatra than people loved Sinatra hated Elvis than people loved Elvis hated the Beatles than people loved the Beatles hated the Clash than people loved the Clash hated Rap it goes on and on and on.

Umm, sure.... and my new dishwasher will last 10 years LOLOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,044
Alpha Tester
4,701 posts
2,401 battles
12 hours ago, STINKWEED_ said:

I agree. Why do people think that every classic rock song needs to be re-made? There's a reason why they have become "classic" and survived all these decades. Also quite pathetic that newer artist these days don't have the creativity nor the talent to put out original work. This explains why "classic" songs from this millennium are few and far in-between.  We now live in a disposable society. A hit song today is forgotten a week later. 

 

12 hours ago, Lert said:

1) Because they want to honor the old song by making their own version

2) Just because a song is covered doesn't diminish the old song nor causes it to cease to exist

3) Gross overgeneralization, there are tons of modern bands that create their own original work and do it well

4) Yeah don't go around acting like everything in the old days was solid gold, 99% of what came out then was crap and is totally forgotten, 'classic' songs came by once every few years

5) Nostalgia's a female dog, innit.

6) The pop charts cater to the lowest common denominator, if you want to hear properly good music that is not pre-produced bite-sized regurgitated crap, listen to music outside of the pop charts. This was true then, it's true now.

7) Many of what are considered 'timeless classics' are nothing but covers themselves. House of the Rising Sun, Nothing Compares 2 U, Aretha Franklin's Respect, Girls Just Want to Have Fun, Therapy?'s Diane, Killing Me Softly, Bette Davis Eyes, Tainted Love, Red Red Wine, etc ... Covering other people's works is nothing new.

 

I agree with both of you in some ways. I completely agree that there is amazing music and musicians out there today, but they don't get the popularity they deserve. Two of my favourite modern bands are the Zac Brown Band and Kaleo, but they simply don't get the exposure they deserve, and so the Billboard charts get infested with 95% awful songs. I also agree that good music back in the day was overall better than music nowadays. I still love modern artists and songs (Zac Brown Band, Kaleo, Chris Stapleton, Sia, Bruno Mars, Havana by Camilla Cabello, Say Something by JT and Chris Stapleton, among others), but I prefer old music because I think hearing people play real instruments and singing with real, un-autotuned voices is overall better.

As for the post that prompted Lert to say this:

12 hours ago, Lert said:

tC5uumk.png

Guess you would consider this an insult to everything you stand for as well:

Here, allow me to make your ears bleed:

Gonna preach at me as well, presenting opinion as fact because you don't like something?

I am a massive Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler fan and I think that they're a group that one does not simply top (see also: The Eagles, Rumours-era Fleetwood Mac, the Tragically Hip). I also think that covers of songs are unnecessary unless you are good enough that you can do as good or better than the original (e.g. Jimi Hendrix's version of Bob Dylan's All Along The Watchtower, George Thorogood's version of Bo Diddley's Who Do You Love, Stevie Ray Vaughan's version of Jimi Hendrix's Voodoo Child (Slight Return), the covers of Respect and House of the Rising Sun you mentioned), and like I said, Mark Knopfler simply cannot be topped.

P.S. That cover of Losing My Religion (one of my favourite songs) did almost make my ears bleed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,044
Alpha Tester
4,701 posts
2,401 battles
6 hours ago, clammboy said:

Things are never going to stay the same , first people loved Bing Crosby hated Sinatra than people loved Sinatra hated Elvis than people loved Elvis hated the Beatles than people loved the Beatles hated the Clash than people loved the Clash hated Rap it goes on and on and on.

gKD1dcs.jpg.94ca9ae0bedae23575ce0a555908b96c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,542 posts
26 battles

There are so many songs that have been made in another genre. Like Lorde's cover of 'Everybody wants to rule the world' or Disturbed's 'Sound of Silence'. Total switches but loads of fun in their own way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,818
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,268 posts

Okay - I'm turning the page a bit - this is VERY mellow stuff... most probably won't like it.. but check out some of his vid's... for me, the instrument itself is just... well... gorgeous. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,818
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,268 posts

Then after the video above with the harpguitar... youtube thought I'd like this... surprisingly... I do...lead vocals need some work... but the concept is sorta hilarious. As the top commentor wrote, "These guys need a gimmick"... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×