Re: Who's NOT the best

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

>    Some people prefer what i call background music. Which is not to imply 
>it's not challenging. i have a friend who listens to Miles Davis' 
>fusion-jazz alot. It's incredibly challenging writing and masterfully 
>performed. More so than the Who, to be fair. But the Who are more "in your 
>face".

Music is wierd stuff.  Didn't somebody recently point out an article here 
regarding how the volume of rock music affects the brain?  And "background" 
music can do it, too.  Recall the recent research on how "classical" music 
can improve IQ for a brief period.  It's only certain types of classical 
music though.  Wagner falls into the "in your face," high volume category.

BTW, isn't most of Miles Davis' stuff improvisational?  I don't know that 
it's written.  There are recordings of him playing written work, say PORGY 
AND BESS, but I though it was mostly very complex jamming.


>    "In your face?" i have a friend who listens to Rage Against The 
>Machine.

>    Great singer? There are plenty of better singers out there than Roger, 
>it would be pointless to start squabbling because if you like a voice or 
>not is just opinion. Technical ability? Bobby McFerrin, Mariah Carey, Paul 
>Stanley, countless classically trained singers.

Roger's good.  He's never had a whole lot but a strong voice and a good 
range, and the rest of it is learned technique.  There isn't anybody any 
better at injecting drama and tension into a song.  He has a hard time with 
soft music, though.  It's really tough to fit his voice to it.


>And i'm sure there are better bassists than John (Stanley Jourdan pops to 
>mind),

This one would be hard to justify.


keets
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com