Your Maiden blasphemy

[Magnus]

For me Janick is like your dad’s annoying second wife. Family gatherings used to be great until dad got remarried, and now this other person is always there, blathering on about nonsense, talking over people, drinking too much, and stumbling over the furniture.

Sure, she occasionally cracks a good joke, or has a moment of kindness or insight that makes you think twice; but before you know it she’s right back to her old annoying habits, and you have no choice but to tolerate her while secretly hoping that your dad will someday come to his senses and show her the door.

Meanwhile, your cousins all seem to love her and think she’s the life of the party, and you wonder what planet they’re from.

 

[Saphrax]

To be fair, Jer’s not the only Janick critic in the world, otherwise this joke article wouldn’t exist:

http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=79110

I’m kind of neutral — as long as Maiden retains at least two of the three current guitarists, all’s well in my book and them having 3 doesn’t hurt. Whatever they’ve been doing on the past 5 albums has been working great.

Were they to bring in outside talent to replace any current members at this stage, however, I’d be skeptical. I doubt that’ll happen as it seems they’ve vowed to stay together as a band until they retire.

 

[Number 6]

As you can see, it helps to read what I actually wrote.

I did, that's why I said what I said. If you can't find a connection between my post and everything you said so far, well... let's just say it it suddenly becomes pretty clear why you act so intolerant.

 

[Jer]

I did, that's why I said what I said. If you can't find a connection between my post and everything you said so far, well... let's just say it it suddenly becomes pretty clear why you act so intolerant.

Oh, I see the connection you’re trying to make, but it’s not a connection that’s borne out by what I actually wrote. Thus my comment. Try reading it again, it’s all right there.

 

[Number 6]

Maybe what you actually wrote isn't as objective as you thought it was.

Anyway, I'm out.

 

[Diesel 11]

I see. So they’re...guidelines...that people follow that have been well established by collective experience to be effective. Perhaps we should establish some of these...carefully worded ideas...for things like driving, or interpersonal etiquette, so we don’t get ourselves into trouble by doing things that don’t work. Perhaps we could even call them “principles of the road” or “suggestions of etiquette”.

I have to say, these specifically-worded concepts rule!

I genuinely don't see what this post has to do with the topic at hand. Driving needs rules because it can be dangerous if not handled properly, a health hazard to yourself and others, if you will. Etiquette is based around respecting others, so it's a bit less strict but it's still... more or less important. The only thing that will get you in trouble in music is plagiarism. Otherwise it's just a "roll of the dice... spin of the wheel," to quote a certain song.

Missing notes and the other things you said is what you think of as sloppy - and that's exactly why sloppiness is subjective. "Sloppiness" is a blank term that can be argued via actual things, but it depends on the listener to make the discernment. Janick isn't the best improviser in the world, I'll give you that straight-up, but we're talking about studio recordings, right? How can you miss notes there?

Being off-key is subjective, definitely, I'm just not sure if it's as prevalent as one might think. I know very little about the actual constructions of music, just about how you can construct things. "Caught Somewhere In Time" is allegedly one of Bruce's most off-key songs, but I don't quite hear that, so it would take someone with more of a musical knowledge to explain that. What bothers me personally is more along the lines of "Brighter Than A Thousand Suns", where Bruce isn't always on top of the music. But other people love the song and would argue that it works to its purpose. I wouldn't call that sloppiness, it just doesn't work well to my ears.

Also, Dr. Suess forged a living via randomly coming up with words to describe shit instead of using ones that already exist - is he sloppy, too? WriTiNG liK E T. HiS may look sloppy to someone, but what if there's an actual purpose behind it? Is that sloppiness?

Things are not as objective as you may think. Sloppiness is not objective. I'll give you up-front being off-key - that's objective and it's for the listener to make up their minds about it. But sloppiness? Come on now.

EDIT: And if there are any more logical fallacies in this post, point out each and every one of them. I'm not as biased as you seem to think I am, even if it doesn't show that in text.

 

[Black Abyss Babe]

Bingo, Diesel. "Sloppiness" is in no way a clearly defined term with a unique, unambiguous meaning. It is a derogatory term, generally used to imply that something which is clearly defined is being done badly or in a half-arsed fashion. Where it falls down here is that the "rules" which Janick is supposedly breaking only exist in Jer's mind. They have absolutely nothing to do with Maiden.

 

[Black Wizard]

Maybe what you actually wrote isn't as objective as you thought it was.

Logical fallacy, buddy.

 

[Wogmidget]

Bloody 'ell, are you lot still going on about this?

 

[The Dissident]

I now retract my statement of Moonchild being an awful song, it has been growing on me as of late

 

[Black Abyss Babe]

Here's a really controversial one: if Adrian had been invited back on his own c 1998 I really think he might have been able to save Maiden (and Blaze) all by himself. No need for Bruce then ...

 

[Saphrax]

Here's a really controversial one: if Adrian had been invited back on his own c 1998 I really think he might have been able to save Maiden (and Blaze) all by himself. No need for Bruce then ...

I disagree — it’s hard to ignore songs written to fit Bruce’s vocal style sung by not-Bruce.

That’s what The X Factor and Virtual XI sound like to me: Maiden karaoke sung by the wrong person.

 

[Operations666]

Here's a really controversial one: if Adrian had been invited back on his own c 1998 I really think he might have been able to save Maiden (and Blaze) all by himself. No need for Bruce then ...

Can you imagine old, fat, bald Blaze on stage with Maiden now? :O

 

[Diesel 11]

Can you imagine old, fat, bald Blaze on stage with Maiden now? :O

Yes, but not as the lead singer.

 

[Saphrax]

I generally find out the setlist before shows and don’t get what the big deal spoilers are for some fans.

I’ll play along and respect that but geez.

 

[Jer]

And if there are any more logical fallacies in this post, point out each and every one of them. I'm not as biased as you seem to think I am, even if it doesn't show that in text.

What the hell, I’m game to go down the rabbit hole one more time...

I genuinely don't see what this post has to do with the topic at hand.

@Black Abyss Babe posited that things like having instruments be in tune or trying to have notes sometimes line up with strong beats in the music weren’t “rules”, but her description of how people arrived at those conventions directly mirrored how society arrived at other conventions that we regularly refer to as rules. I attempted to use humor to point out this irony.

It has everything to do with the topic at hand, because her assertion appeared to be an attempt to undermine the notion that there are any objective notions of “correctness” to musical form, but her argument directly undermined her own position.

OK, let’s move on to the biggest problem in your post:

Being off-key is subjective, definitely

I'll give you up-front being off-key - that's objective

You do realize that you’ve just taken two completely opposing positions in the same post, right? You really ought to pick one and stick with it. (Spoiler alert, you should pick the second one.)

Missing notes and the other things you said is what you think of as sloppy - and that's exactly why sloppiness is subjective. "Sloppiness" is a blank term that can be argued via actual things, but it depends on the listener to make the discernment.

You’re half right. I think the subtle distinction that may be being missed here is that the measurement of factors that contribute to the perception of sloppiness is pretty obviously objective, but the thresholding of those factors and the assessment of what’s “too sloppy” or “too clinical” is personal and subjective.

Saying “it’s all subjective” is obviously bullshit, because you can of course measure how close a note is to the frequency it ought to be on the scale being used, or how close it is to the rhythm features underneath it. Whether you personally notice those objective differences, or like or dislike them, has no bearing on whether they exist or not. Of course they exist — you can measure them independently. And because you can do that, those differences are not subjective — only your reaction to them is.

Janick isn't the best improviser in the world, I'll give you that straight-up, but we're talking about studio recordings, right? How can you miss notes there?

If your producer is in love with the idea of recording everything live in the studio and just keeping the best full takes, and if you play in a “loose, improvisational style” that gives you cover for your lack of technical precision.

I know very little about the actual constructions of music

Well, here’s a hint: it’s all math underneath. The rhythms, the relationships of the frequencies of the notes, and why certain ones work well together in chords and others don’t. One might even refer to them as “rules”.

What bothers me personally is more along the lines of "Brighter Than A Thousand Suns", where Bruce isn't always on top of the music. But other people love the song and would argue that it works to its purpose. I wouldn't call that sloppiness, it just doesn't work well to my ears.

And you’re illustrating my point. Where his lyrics fall vs. the rhythm is measurable and objective. How you respond to it is personal and subjective.

Also, Dr. Suess forged a living via randomly coming up with words to describe shit instead of using ones that already exist - is he sloppy, too?

No, you have to be quite composed to work successfully with rhythm and rhyme and puns. And word invention is a long-standing tradition appearing in everything from Seuss to Shakespeare. If the meaning or role of the word is understood, then it fits into the same grammatical structures as any other word would.

WriTiNG liK E T. HiS may look sloppy to someone, but what if there's an actual purpose behind it? Is that sloppiness?

Yes, it’s just intentionally sloppy in that case.

Things are not as objective as you may think.

Well, you state this as if it’s a fact, but you haven’t offered a substantive argument for your point of view.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

Jer, if your serious point here is that Janick is sloppy in the studio then you're talking bollocks.

 

[Kalata]

Janick has never been sloppy, neither on studio nor live !

 

[Randalf]

Janick has never been sloppy, neither on studio nor live !

Well, while I really like Janick, that is definitely a bold statement.

 

[Diesel 11]

You do realize that you’ve just taken two completely opposing positions in the same post, right? You really ought to pick one and stick with it. (Spoiler alert, you should pick the second one.)

The first one was a typo. Dunno why I wrote subjective - sometimes my head runs before my fingers.

Well, you state this as if it’s a fact, but you haven’t offered a substantive argument for your point of view.

My only point in this whole thing is that sloppiness is subjective, but Black Abyss Babe already summed it up quite well...

"Sloppiness" is in no way a clearly defined term with a unique, unambiguous meaning. It is a derogatory term, generally used to imply that something which is clearly defined is being done badly or in a half-arsed fashion.