when did this crap start where people say "such and such wonderful note happens at the 7:43 point of the song" all the time?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

it's totally annoying, you know that, right?

i mean do those people just stand there with stopwatches or what?

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:48 (twenty years ago)

Since we don't have scores to refer to measure numbers, we use timings, as is a logical standard for recorded music. You have a better idea?

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:50 (twenty years ago)

CD and media players generally provide this infomation, so it's an easy way to pinpoint a particular part of a song (piece, whatever).

― RS, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:54 (twenty years ago)

Guilty, and unashamed. Tuff titty.

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:56 (twenty years ago)

yeah, but do you talk that way in the bar too? if so, do people mistake you for a robot and refuse to give you beer in case you rust?

"about halfway in" or "toward the end" has always worked fine, trust me.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:58 (twenty years ago)

I think I'll spend the rest of my day trying to find a song where the most wonderful part happens at around the 7:43 point. I can't think of a promising candidate right now.

Maybe a mid-90's live version of The Orb's "Towers of Dub"?

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 21:58 (twenty years ago)

Are you Pauline Oliveros?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

I noticed Mojo did this quite a bit in their 100 greatest guitar solos of all time list.

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

> I think I'll spend the rest of my day trying to find a song where the most wonderful part happens at around the 7:43 point. I can't think of a promising candidate right now.

This just might happen in Marvin Gaye's "Funky Space Reincarnation."

And the most wonderful part of Grace Slick's "Manhole" doesn't happen until about 11:30 in.

― Joseph McCombs (Joseph McCombs), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

This thread should have been locked after Eppy's reply. His is the best possible answer. What a douchey question.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:01 (twenty years ago)

"OMG can you believe the cowbell on HOJL?" to thread

― jsoulja (jsoulja), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:03 (twenty years ago)

If you go to Cynthia's on Tooley Street in London they have the world's only functioning robot bartender who will make and serve you a cocktail. It's really fun. The robot bartenders love it when I wax lyrical about the moment 1:12 seconds into Totally Radd!!!'s song "Shark Attack Day Camp" when it all cuts loose.

― Drew Daniel (Drew Daniel), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

I think I'll spend the rest of my day trying to find a song where the most wonderful part happens at around the 7:43 point. I can't think of a promising candidate right now.

That "Kiss Me Again and Again" song by Polmo Polpo, maybe.

― deej., Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

I don't even see the point of specifying the song. "The one that sounds like, you know, that other one they had" is good enough. Whoever 'they' are - even naming the record or artist is a waste of time

― dave q (listerine), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:05 (twenty years ago)

xpost

People were saying that on the Polmo Polpo and gmail threads, but I still maintain that the best moment is the guitar part that comes in at about the twelve minute mark.

If the Chameleons "Soul In Isolation" was about a minute longer, then it would defintely count, because all its best moments happen near the end.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:08 (twenty years ago)

It may be helpful but it's still geeky.

― steve-k, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:12 (twenty years ago)

I really like what "L.A. Woman" by the Doors does at 7:43. Makes me feel real good.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:13 (twenty years ago)

I find it really odd that people would have a problem with music writers trying to be clear and useful to their readers.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:13 (twenty years ago)

because it is the only aspect of rock criticism that is geeky.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:14 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, exactly!

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:16 (twenty years ago)

(why did i start that quip with "because"? makes no sense)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:17 (twenty years ago)

Dude, it's only geeky in the particular instance. Go tell all musicologists ever that they're geeky.

Saying that it's geeky IN GENERAL is geeky.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:18 (twenty years ago)

nah. problem is it ain't geeky enough. it was funny at first, before it started to turn into such an irritating cliche, but at least if you're gonna reduce music fandom into a boring clinical math problem, toss in some cosines or logarhythms or set theory for gods sake.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:21 (twenty years ago)

I would never have done it until iTunes, as I am too lazy, and rarely wear a watch. Now, it's easy. And helpful.

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:22 (twenty years ago)

or even better, 'logarithms'

― geeta (geeta), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:22 (twenty years ago)

(ducks)

― geeta (geeta), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:22 (twenty years ago)

Rhythm is geeky, it reduces music to a boring clinical math problem.

― Jordan (Jordan), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:23 (twenty years ago)

Hi dere geeta!

― Dr. Eldon Tyrell (ex machina), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:24 (twenty years ago)

More engaged-with-the-topic-answer: If this was the entire review, I'd concur, but how many reviews go like: "At 00:32, the drum pattern changes nicely, until around 1:04, after which a synth wash establishes the ethereal aspects before, at precisely 3:21, collapsing in a logarithmic heap, panting, exhausted"?

I mean, I do it, and I've seen it done, whereby the reviewer (or in my case, me) generally wants to highlight one very specific moment. It's never the whole thing, right?

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:26 (twenty years ago)

"logarhythms" was a great Freudian slip, though!

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:27 (twenty years ago)

It all depends on whether you're making an interesting point or not. To make some blanket statement implying that it's crap or geeky or WHATEVER to ever say anything specifically related to particular notes or chords or structural moments in music is just dumbass.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:29 (twenty years ago)

blah blah blah, you are all ignoring my question.

which was: when did it start? i really would like to know.

david a. hinted at an answer maybe.

point is: music criticsm seemed to have gotten along fine for decades if not centuries without it. now it's all over the place. why?

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:30 (twenty years ago)

READ ONE MUSICOLOGY BOOK

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:31 (twenty years ago)

OR ONE CD DISPLAY

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:32 (twenty years ago)

read 40 years of rock criticism.

my theory about why it's all over the place now: lack of imagination

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:32 (twenty years ago)

You'd have to give some examples.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:33 (twenty years ago)

Music is basically time anyway, you know. (insert 4'33" reference)

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:33 (twenty years ago)

now it's all over the place. why?

that should be obvious: because it's easy to determine time with digital devices.

and to answer the other question, I don't see how it's harmful to give a specific time. What does it matter?

― Vestigal Appendages, Esq. (King Kobra), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:33 (twenty years ago)

I guess it annoys her. :(

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:34 (twenty years ago)

This is so fucking stupid.
IT STARTED WITH DIGITAL MUSIC. IT WILL CONTINUE. THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO DO IT.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:35 (twenty years ago)

it makes for bloodless writing.

it fosters the anal-compulsive delusion that precision is exciting.

it is even more boring that beats per minute!

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:36 (twenty years ago)

Would you rather we all count measures? I'm sure that's helpful to the general listener.

― I got the job because I was so mean, while somehow appearing so kind. (AaronHz), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:36 (twenty years ago)

i'm sure you have your outlaw music to console you

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:37 (twenty years ago)

Yes, especially when the time signature is ambigous! :D

― Dr. Eldon Tyrell (ex machina), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:38 (twenty years ago)

Sure, it's annoying if the reviewer isn't making much of a point about anything. If he or she is making a point that you think is interesting, then you'd probably think it's fine.

But how prevalent are annoying instances of this, really? (And again, examples plz.)

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:38 (twenty years ago)

I'm going to release all my music as tracker files and midi files so you guys can find the parts i mean ever easier!

― Dr. Eldon Tyrell (ex machina), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:38 (twenty years ago)

my theory about why it's all over the place now: lack of imagination

-- composer of outlaw music for 40 years (paulin...), March 23rd, 2005.

Oh, stop projecting.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:38 (twenty years ago)

Before CDs did you see more of "on the 65th groove, perpendicular with the serial number on the sleeve, Flora takes a decidedly sharp turn on her husband's wet road, replete with squealing and shattering." I don't know, I don't trust any medium that I can't discretize into integers (that's just me tho)

― caspar (caspar), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:40 (twenty years ago)

music criticism was much better when it stuck to the ole "sounds like X doing Y on Z" paradigm.

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:41 (twenty years ago)

It's fair to say that if you do it all or most of the time it's annoying, but there are legitimate stylistic reasons to do it, just as there are legitimate stylistic reasons to say "around the middle." Like when you're referring to where I wrap my arms whilst I'm doing your moms. (Sorry, this post was so reasonable I thought it might not be allowed onto ILM, so I added a little "snark" as you kids call it.)

― Eppy (Eppy), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 22:42 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 105 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Whether it's published or not, talking about music that way is a "review" ...

Choose a different word if you like .. it'll mean the same thing.

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:25 (twenty years ago)

No way. I don't think all criticism is a review. But for example: what if it occurs here on ILM about something that isn't particularly new? What if I am writing primarily for someone who has already heard the song in question? Is that necessarily a review too? I wouldn't say so.

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:29 (twenty years ago)

I think "review" has to be linked to some sort of time limit. If someone publishes an essay now about The Catcher in the Rye, it wouldn't be considered a review. In fact, it would seem like a joke to write a review of it now.

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:30 (twenty years ago)

Fine. You're still talking about it. And the person you're telling it to still has to get a copy of the track to know what you're talking about if you're using time to describe something in it.

"Review" "Analysis" "EggCup" .. call it whatever...

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 24 March 2005 13:34 (twenty years ago)

Ever notice how at 1:28 of the Beatles' "What Goes On", you can hear in the left speaker John saying "we told you why!" after Ringo sings "Tell me why"? Good stuff.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:46 (twenty years ago)

skipping over a good part of this thread, I would LOVE to see more reviews where the writer pinpoints exact moments of the song to talk about.

― AaronK (AaronK), Thursday, 24 March 2005 16:52 (twenty years ago)

"Some writers talk about a band's influences in reviews. Some people will check them out, some won't. Some people will seek out original version of a cover tune, some won't. Some people will check out a band's previous recordings before the current hype/hit, some won't. SOME PEOPLE WILL CHECK OUT THE PART OF THE SONG THAT OCCURS AT A TIME CODE MENTIONED BY A REVIEWER, AND SOME WON'T."

yeah so i think as walter kinda suggested above, this is totally comparing apples and oranges. the three examples in lower case above can be interesting and potentially useful whether they are acted upon or not, where the example in upper case can be interesting and useful ONLY if the reader acts upon it. so its inclusion in the review presupposes that the review will be used in a particular way. it's like the writer wants to control what I DO with his review. if the review is not used in that way, the piece of information in question is by definition completely useless and meaningless.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)

"the example in upper case can be interesting and useful ONLY if the reader acts upon it."

Not necessarily true. If the writer also explains what he/she is talking about, you might not feel the need to go listen to it immediately, might listen for it the next time you play the thing, etc.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:24 (twenty years ago)

Are you by any chance wearing a tinfoil hat to block the rays the FBI is using to scan the brains of American citizens?

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:32 (twenty years ago)

Ever notice how at 1:28 of the Beatles' "What Goes On", you can hear in the left speaker John saying "we told you why!" after Ringo sings "Tell me why"? Good stuff.
...
If the writer also explains what he/she is talking about, you might not feel the need to go listen to it immediately, might listen for it the next time you play the thing, etc.

So what's the point of the time reference if it anyway needs to be explained with words?

― dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:40 (twenty years ago)

"the example in upper case can be interesting and useful ONLY if the reader acts upon it."
Not necessarily true. If the writer also explains what he/she is talking about, you might not feel the need to go listen to it immediately, might listen for it the next time you play the thing, "

Tim, that IS acting upon it. Exactly what I said. And you could listen for it whether the writer gave you precise time coordinates or not; they add nothing you wouldn't already have, except that they dictate HOW you should listen for it. They serve no other purpose.

― composer of outlaw music for 40 years, Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:45 (twenty years ago)

Society's arms of control...
RISE ABOVE WE'RE GONNA RISE ABOVE

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

What I was getting it is that if the reviewer also described whatever it is that they want to say about the section and used the time coordinates to identify it, at least you'd have the description also. You could go listen to it if you felt like it, but if the description was good enough, that would also suffice.

I don't know if I've seen it done in reviews, personally, but I'm open to the idea that it can be have a purpose. As far as academic writing, Allan Moore (if I remember correctly) does this a lot in his Sgt. Pepper book and it seemed useful.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 24 March 2005 17:59 (twenty years ago)

Jesus.

1: "Hey everyone, here's a brick wall, try to destroy it using nothing but your forehead!"
2: "OK!"
3: *thud* *thud* *thud* *thud* *thud*

― sleep (sleep), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:23 (twenty years ago)

sorry

― sleep (sleep), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:26 (twenty years ago)

..And I would be bored shitless by a book review that referred to the book by page numbers.

I don't see how you possibly could be more or less bored by that.
If someone quotes a passage from the Crying of Lot 49 for instance and goes:
Meanwhile, back in the torture room, the cardinal is now being forced to bleed into a chalice and consecrate his own blood, not to God, but to Satan. They also cut off his big toe, and he is made to hold it up like a Host and say, "This is my body," the keen-witted Angelo observing that it's the first time he's told anything like the truth in fifty years of systematic lying. Altogether, a most anti-clerical scene, perhaps intended as a sop to the Puritans of the time (a useless gesture since none of them ever went to plays, regarding them for some reason as immoral). (peng.cl.ed. p. 53, para.1), if you have the book you can either look it up in context, or not. I would rather have the option of doing so.

The argument here seems to be nothing more than OH GOD TOO MUCH INFORMATION MAKE IT STOP

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:42 (twenty years ago)

WE ARE TIRED
OF YOUR ABUSE
TRY TO STOP US
IT'S NO USE
RISE ABOVE
RISE ABOVE
RISE ABOVE
WE'RE GONNA RISE ABOVE

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:45 (twenty years ago)

What is going on! Are you all MAD!?

― deej., Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:45 (twenty years ago)

Let's go back to searching for tracks where the best part happens at 7:43 +/- 0:02

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:50 (twenty years ago)

Pink Floyd "Echoes"!

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 21:54 (twenty years ago)

j/k
hmm there's a cool little piano part that comes in Beatles "Revolution 9" at 7:43

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:00 (twenty years ago)

OH GOD TOO MUCH INFORMATION MAKE IT STOP

Yes, exactly! Thank you. U HURT MY BRANE, PLS MAKE IT STOP!

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:04 (twenty years ago)

http://orbita.starmedia.com/~necrose/Sci-Fi/Filmes/scanners.jpg

― Silky Sensor (sexyDancer), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:22 (twenty years ago)

At the 7:43 point of "Epitaph" you have just heard the end of the first timpani roll without Greg Lake singing over it.

To answer the original question- I don't know, but I guess it must have happened when all the math-geek fiction hataz took over.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:35 (twenty years ago)

& ppl who can't tell boring information from entertaining information

― olde english henrod, Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:50 (twenty years ago)

So what's the point of the time reference if it anyway needs to be explained with words?

5:51; 9:01

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:51 (twenty years ago)

What's the point of saying "Rest Stop 10 miles ahead" if you need to use words to say it?

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Thursday, 24 March 2005 22:56 (twenty years ago)

I hate being told how many aspirin to take on the label, I think I'll swallow the whole bottle.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 24 March 2005 23:07 (twenty years ago)

no, i have an idea! let's make every record review as exciting as a road sign or aspirin label instead. that'd be great!

― olde english henrod, Thursday, 24 March 2005 23:42 (twenty years ago)

pill bottle labels are exciting, if not taken strictly literally

― dave q (listerine), Thursday, 24 March 2005 23:46 (twenty years ago)

Well I see you've reviewed your brand-new leopardskin pill-bottle label.

― Ken L (Ken L), Thursday, 24 March 2005 23:52 (twenty years ago)

olde english retard, It's surely not possible to make a review exciting and informative is it?

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 00:02 (twenty years ago)

never implied it wasn't, dimwit.

nor did anybody else on this thread

though some of the best record reviews are all lies.

― olde english henrod, Friday, 25 March 2005 00:23 (twenty years ago)

give me example, o wise olde english hentai asshole.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 00:39 (twenty years ago)

BESIDES Lester Bangs' "Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung: A Tale of These Times".

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 00:42 (twenty years ago)

You know the thread is in trouble when Aaron has put his name in the name field to reveal his true self to do battle with the trolls.

― Ken L (Ken L), Friday, 25 March 2005 01:04 (twenty years ago)

VAN HALEN
Best of Both Worlds
(Rhino)
Van Halen are known for their legendary trademark and a long train runnin’ of numbers for titles instead of words, for instance calling their thirteenth release 3. This compilation doesn’t include anything from that 1998 collaboration with Robbie "Jesus is Just Alright" Robertson (from Extreme, whose ode to mute bitches was the "Isn’t it Time" to "Under the Bridge"’s "Roxanne") which consolidated Robertson’s 1987 and 1991 Compact Discs except with a less consistent vocal approach ("The Greatest American Hero theme" even featured Eddie singing) and more instrumental solo expression. In the meantime somebody at Rolling Stone heard a copy of Diver Down, glanced at the cover, and consequently thinking it was the White Stripes placed Jack White at #17 in their Greatest Guitarists Ever poll. After contemplating their futures and considering Don Ho and Magnum McGarret as lead singers, the band reunited with Jason Scheff, who sang such hits as "I Don’t Wanna Live Without Your Love" and "Look Away" during the band’s 80s resurgence. He wrote some new songs here but unfortunately "VOA ("raise the flag/let it wave/ shoot them down/ to their graves") 2"isn’t one of them. That would’ve been interesting in this exciting times but instead "Up for Breakfast" sounds a little too obviously pre-designed for the forthcoming Crank Waffles halftime-show spot, however resigned yet unnerving coming from the one-time Dean Martin of the guitar. Imagine waking up sober and realizing that’s how good you’re going to sound for the rest of your career. (One day at a time!) And then collaborating with a professional tequila drinker.
This 2-for-1 of Abacab and Happy Mondays’ Raunch’n’Roll Live is misleadingly led off by "Eruption". Now than anyone alive can play the second half, it’s best heard as a field recording and would’ve better a fit a compilation including "Spanish Fly", "Tora Tora", "Cathedral", "Strung Out", "Marin Muezzin" from Sammy Hagar Having Fun on Stage, "Sunday Afternoon in the Park", "Saturday in the Park", "Free Form Guitar", "Watermelon in Easter Hay" and the Deer Hunter theme. However dedicated to the people of the revolution a direct challenge to Derek Bailey might be, it bears remembering that many who prefer the Scheff shift to the Cetera era can at least prove they live their lives like they know there’s a tomorrow and without love where would they be right now.

# posted by dave @ 6:44 AM

― olde english henrod, Friday, 25 March 2005 01:07 (twenty years ago)

Ken, wouldn't it be great if one of these fules was the Questionizer?

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 01:13 (twenty years ago)

x-post
I've made up funnier rock trivia confusion bullshit just hanging out with friends.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 01:16 (twenty years ago)

Seriously, if reviews like that are your idea of great criticism, get yourself a lobotomy. It goes great with a markprindle.com t-shirt.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Friday, 25 March 2005 01:19 (twenty years ago)

1:38-2:09 of Frank Zappa's "Catholic Girls" is the funkiest break I have ever heard in my life. I rewind it and listen to it over and over.

― @@r0n h. z@nd3r$ (AaronHz), Thursday, 7 April 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

Hahahaha... all hail Vinnie Coliauta.

― Curious George (1/6 Scale Model) (Rock Hardy), Thursday, 7 April 2005 22:10 (twenty years ago)

I want to play a show where we just do that for 45 minutes.

― @@r0n h. z@nd3r$ (AaronHz), Thursday, 7 April 2005 23:12 (twenty years ago)

VINNIE!

― cutty (mcutt), Friday, 8 April 2005 01:26 (twenty years ago)

I want to play a show where we just do that for 45 minutes.

I'd pay to see that. Bill yourself as "The New Boredoms." Speaking of which.... SIX WEEKS TO VICTO!!!

― Curious George (1/6 Scale Model) (Rock Hardy), Friday, 8 April 2005 02:06 (twenty years ago)

My fusion project Deus Inchoatus is currently uh, inchoate.
But it might be a fun encore idea or something someday. Catholic Girls with a 45 minute break. (haha, 15 minutes seems a bit more reasonable).
What the fuck are you supposed to call that time signature anyway?
I just go 1-2-3-4,1-2-3-4,1-2-3-1-2-3 (x3); 1-2-3-1-2, 1-2-3-1-2. That works.
Is there a better way to be counting that? I'm not a drummer.

― @@r0n h. z@nd3r$ (AaronHz), Friday, 8 April 2005 04:56 (twenty years ago)

I used to know the exact hour minute and second on The Gift DVD when Katie Holmes shows her tits, but I forgot it.

― billstevejim, Friday, 8 April 2005 05:10 (twenty years ago)

(I never owned that DVD by the way, in case anyone thinks I have shite taste in film.)

― billstevejim, Friday, 8 April 2005 05:10 (twenty years ago)

I'm listening to that Grupo Niche song that jumps into another dimension at 3:17 ("Cielo de Tambores").

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Friday, 8 April 2005 10:19 (twenty years ago)

(I never owned that DVD by the way, in case anyone thinks I have shite taste in film.)

Haha.

― RS £aRue (rockist_scientist), Friday, 8 April 2005 10:20 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.