|
Post by taylorism on Jun 29, 2020 22:06:33 GMT -5
I believe Duran had to go to court about it and it was found to be a common blues progression. No big deal. Thanx for the info sergejames, Regarding DYBIS, I had no idea ! No, buddy, they lost. You can go to www.ascap.com and see the ACE Repertory where you can check the songwriters. Easier, i did the search, here's the link
|
|
|
Post by taylorism on Jun 29, 2020 22:09:52 GMT -5
Also, if you want, you can go there and see that there's a whole bunch of song registered with titles we never heard of... it would be a nice little job for us to check all those song names and try to figure out what we are missing...!
|
|
|
Post by bwkk on Jun 30, 2020 0:59:37 GMT -5
Often, I can't believe the dislike for Nick on this board, it makes no sense whatsoever, but again that's just my opinion. It's obvious if you actually analyse it. Nick is divisive for a number of reasons; some people are critical of these reasons, but for others they're not a big deal. Firstly Nick's perceived lack of playing ability. Let's be honest - a lot of this is subjective in the first place. Not many people really know how good a player Nick Rhodes truly is, and the ones that have the best and most educated idea, aren't venturing their opinions any time soon (well not if they want to work with Duran in the future at least). But perception is reality, and you hear a lot more rumours that Nick is not a great player, rather than that he has impressive keyboard skills. Here's the thing - Nick himself doesn't care too much about what he can and can't play; to him it's about ideas, rather than performance. If he needs something complicated played, he'll hire somebody to do it. To some people - that's fine. They have the attitude "if that's good enough for Nick Rhodes, then that's good enough for me". But to others - that is lazy. They have the attitude "oh come on, Nick Rhodes has been playing this instrument for over 40 years, you telling me he hasn't had the time to come up with these great ideas, plus also learn how to play them himself, rather than hiring other musicians to do it for him"? And you know what - both of those points of view are valid, but it will mean the proponents of each will be critical of each other, and disagree on internet forums Secondly it is reported that Nick Rhodes owns the Duran Duran name. Not Nick and John, who started the band, not Nick, John, Simon, Andy, and Roger who made it famous, and not Nick, John, Simon, and Roger who chronologically have been the longest serving unit. Just Nick himself. For some people - that's cool, how Duran Duran organise their "business" is their business. If it works - great! But for other people - this gives Nick too much control and influence. Perhaps they worry that he'll always get his own way in band discussions, and that the others may be scared to stick up for themselves? Maybe they prefer to think of Duran as being four (or however many members it has at the time) equal members, rather than thinking there's a legal "boss of the group"? Who knows what adversaries to that idea think? But what it does mean is that the two different groups are going to be arguing again at various times. And now the "elephant in the room" at number three - some Andy fans, or maybe just guitarist fans in general, blame Nick for Andy leaving the band twice. The "pro-Nick" group will point out that Andy is not a team player, and put himself before the band twice. While the "pro-guitarist" group will say that on both Seven & The Ragged Tiger, and Astronaut, that Andy was not given as much licence to thrill, plus was quite low in the mix at the expense of the keyboards, and this was intentional to diminish the role of the guitar on those albums. Once again both of those views are correct - for various reasons it appears Andy does not always play well with others (depending on whom the "others" are), plus Duran has slowly been diminishing the importance of the lead guitar for some time. Nick has great ideas, is a very good song-writer, and is intelligent and forthright. He is an asset to Duran Duran. But it appears he can also be stubborn. Quite simply - he can be divisive. I actually think Duran Duran made better music earlier on when Nick was learning his craft; the better Nick has gotten, the more keyboard layers he has added, and the (just slightly) worse the music has gotten as a result. Compare Nick to Roger. Roger is quiet and unassuming - the "everyday" man of the band. What negatives can you say about Rog? Not many. Funnily enough, like Nick, I don't think Roger's drumming skills over the past 40 years have advanced as much as they should have either. But for some reason Roger gets a free pass on this, while Nick gets crucified. In terms of divisive band members in Duran Duran, it goes Nick then Simon, then a large gap to John then Roger. When it comes to personalities you wouldn't want four Nicks in the band, as they would constantly be at each other's hypothetical throats. But you wouldn't want four Rogers either, as not enough hard and fast decisions would be made when required. I actually think the personalities in Duran match each other well, and the band obviously agrees as they have been together for most of this century. So there you have it - the reasons why there is dislike for Nick Rhodes on a Duran Duran forum. Thankfully there is also love for him as well Anybody else have questions to the universe they need answered? No it's not 42. If so, PM me and I'll let you know the answer plus my bank account details. This was a perfect post. It's one thing to be "pro-Nick", its another to not see how any fan could possibly have issues with Nick. With regard to your comment that 4 Nicks would be at each others throat, I kind of think that describes the dynamic between Nick and Andy. There isn't enough room for two alphas so to speak. As for your comment that Duran's music has gotten worse (just slightly) with the more keyboard layers. I personally think that that, combined with the diminishing role of guitar, has made the music slightly more then slightly worse. I am in the camp that has a lot of issues with Nick's role in the band. Having said that, he has been the keeper of the Flame and I have to thank him for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 3:10:47 GMT -5
It's obvious if you actually analyse it. Nick is divisive for a number of reasons; some people are critical of these reasons, but for others they're not a big deal. Firstly Nick's perceived lack of playing ability. Let's be honest - a lot of this is subjective in the first place. Not many people really know how good a player Nick Rhodes truly is, and the ones that have the best and most educated idea, aren't venturing their opinions any time soon (well not if they want to work with Duran in the future at least). But perception is reality, and you hear a lot more rumours that Nick is not a great player, rather than that he has impressive keyboard skills. Here's the thing - Nick himself doesn't care too much about what he can and can't play; to him it's about ideas, rather than performance. If he needs something complicated played, he'll hire somebody to do it. To some people - that's fine. They have the attitude "if that's good enough for Nick Rhodes, then that's good enough for me". But to others - that is lazy. They have the attitude "oh come on, Nick Rhodes has been playing this instrument for over 40 years, you telling me he hasn't had the time to come up with these great ideas, plus also learn how to play them himself, rather than hiring other musicians to do it for him"? And you know what - both of those points of view are valid, but it will mean the proponents of each will be critical of each other, and disagree on internet forums Secondly it is reported that Nick Rhodes owns the Duran Duran name. Not Nick and John, who started the band, not Nick, John, Simon, Andy, and Roger who made it famous, and not Nick, John, Simon, and Roger who chronologically have been the longest serving unit. Just Nick himself. For some people - that's cool, how Duran Duran organise their "business" is their business. If it works - great! But for other people - this gives Nick too much control and influence. Perhaps they worry that he'll always get his own way in band discussions, and that the others may be scared to stick up for themselves? Maybe they prefer to think of Duran as being four (or however many members it has at the time) equal members, rather than thinking there's a legal "boss of the group"? Who knows what adversaries to that idea think? But what it does mean is that the two different groups are going to be arguing again at various times. And now the "elephant in the room" at number three - some Andy fans, or maybe just guitarist fans in general, blame Nick for Andy leaving the band twice. The "pro-Nick" group will point out that Andy is not a team player, and put himself before the band twice. While the "pro-guitarist" group will say that on both Seven & The Ragged Tiger, and Astronaut, that Andy was not given as much licence to thrill, plus was quite low in the mix at the expense of the keyboards, and this was intentional to diminish the role of the guitar on those albums. Once again both of those views are correct - for various reasons it appears Andy does not always play well with others (depending on whom the "others" are), plus Duran has slowly been diminishing the importance of the lead guitar for some time. Nick has great ideas, is a very good song-writer, and is intelligent and forthright. He is an asset to Duran Duran. But it appears he can also be stubborn. Quite simply - he can be divisive. I actually think Duran Duran made better music earlier on when Nick was learning his craft; the better Nick has gotten, the more keyboard layers he has added, and the (just slightly) worse the music has gotten as a result. Compare Nick to Roger. Roger is quiet and unassuming - the "everyday" man of the band. What negatives can you say about Rog? Not many. Funnily enough, like Nick, I don't think Roger's drumming skills over the past 40 years have advanced as much as they should have either. But for some reason Roger gets a free pass on this, while Nick gets crucified. In terms of divisive band members in Duran Duran, it goes Nick then Simon, then a large gap to John then Roger. When it comes to personalities you wouldn't want four Nicks in the band, as they would constantly be at each other's hypothetical throats. But you wouldn't want four Rogers either, as not enough hard and fast decisions would be made when required. I actually think the personalities in Duran match each other well, and the band obviously agrees as they have been together for most of this century. So there you have it - the reasons why there is dislike for Nick Rhodes on a Duran Duran forum. Thankfully there is also love for him as well Anybody else have questions to the universe they need answered? No it's not 42. If so, PM me and I'll let you know the answer plus my bank account details. This was a perfect post. It's one thing to be "pro-Nick", its another to not see how any fan could possibly have issues with Nick. With regard to your comment that 4 Nicks would be at each others throat, I kind of think that describes the dynamic between Nick and Andy. There isn't enough room for two alphas so to speak. As for your comment that Duran's music has gotten worse (just slightly) with the more keyboard layers. I personally think that that, combined with the diminishing role of guitar, has made the music slightly more then slightly worse. I am in the camp that has a lot of issues with Nick's role in the band. Having said that, he has been the keeper of the Flame and I have to thank him for that. Good, balanced post Thankyou. However, CB is a fan of ‘Guitar Duran’ - he rams it down our throats enough times, much the same as I do I expect. Lol He’s just been neutral, looking at from both sides. But you’re right about ‘less guitar is more than worse’. Right from the off I was disappointed with Paper Gods. There is no killer song on that album for me - standard, mediocre, average, normal. So I’m thinking it can’t be just me who has that opinion. I mean what serious band would release ‘Dancephobia?’ I read an answer by JT on Reddit when he was doing the bass tutorials and he basically said that any successful commercial band will find it difficult to be taken seriously - which I found quite hard to swallow in all honesty. It’s almost like saying ‘ok, we’ll give up trying to be taken seriously’ hence Dancephobia. Then he said their turning point was Ordinary World. Of course that was Warren turning the band into ‘serious’ musos. But I think the turning point was Big Thing. hmmm. Wasn’t that when Warren started playing? Strange that one. And now we come full circle - throwaway pop in favour of riffs. This new album had better be ‘serious’ otherwise it’ll be another door closing on DD’s career.
|
|
|
Post by sergejames on Jun 30, 2020 4:15:13 GMT -5
Thanx for the info sergejames, Regarding DYBIS, I had no idea ! No, buddy, they lost. You can go to www.ascap.com and see the ACE Repertory where you can check the songwriters. Easier, i did the search, here's the linkStrange, I remember reading years and years ago that it was found to be just a common blues progression...anyway thinks for the info.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 5:19:48 GMT -5
No, buddy, they lost. You can go to www.ascap.com and see the ACE Repertory where you can check the songwriters. Easier, i did the search, here's the linkStrange, I remember reading years and years ago that it was found to be just a common blues progression...anyway thinks for the info. Whatever the verdict that *is* Blues progression. Music lawyers will jump on anything that sounds remotely similar and if there’s the faintest of similarities there will be a case. I think it’s obscene really. There’s probably thousands upon thousands of these cases that we don’t know of and it will continue ten fold, even more so when harmonies and chords become so saturated. How long can it continue? There can’t be much originality left. I know which song I prefer anyway.
|
|
|
Post by taylorism on Jun 30, 2020 9:05:04 GMT -5
Strange, I remember reading years and years ago that it was found to be just a common blues progression...anyway thinks for the info. Whatever the verdict that *is* Blues progression. Music lawyers will jump on anything that sounds remotely similar and if there’s the faintest of similarities there will be a case. I think it’s obscene really. There’s probably thousands upon thousands of these cases that we don’t know of and it will continue ten fold, even more so when harmonies and chords become so saturated. How long can it continue? There can’t be much originality left. I know which song I prefer anyway. Yes, the chord progression a common blues one, but the melody is the one that got them into problem, and that has nothing to do with chord progressions. Of course DYBIS is so much more than just that verse part, and the rest of the song has nothing to do with the original, and at the end of the day, is a song I like 10k time more than Suzie Q.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 9:56:51 GMT -5
Whatever the verdict that *is* Blues progression. Music lawyers will jump on anything that sounds remotely similar and if there’s the faintest of similarities there will be a case. I think it’s obscene really. There’s probably thousands upon thousands of these cases that we don’t know of and it will continue ten fold, even more so when harmonies and chords become so saturated. How long can it continue? There can’t be much originality left. I know which song I prefer anyway. Yes, the chord progression a common blues one, but the melody is the one that got them into problem, and that has nothing to do with chord progressions. Of course DYBIS is so much more than just that verse part, and the rest of the song has nothing to do with the original, and at the end of the day, is a song I like 10k time more than Suzie Q. But it’s still takes work, thought and inspiration to think ‘hmm, I wonder what melody we can use for this verse?’ And so on. I mean much can be said for melodies. How much more variation is left? I can see why it went to court. Especially, that everything about the two songs is similar. Like you said before, I’m surprised that everybody agreed to it - or more than 50% did. Stevie was out of the picture then - I doubt Warren would have said much as he was a hired gun. They must have known it was a replica?
|
|
|
Post by bwkk on Jun 30, 2020 11:55:10 GMT -5
This was a perfect post. It's one thing to be "pro-Nick", its another to not see how any fan could possibly have issues with Nick. With regard to your comment that 4 Nicks would be at each others throat, I kind of think that describes the dynamic between Nick and Andy. There isn't enough room for two alphas so to speak. As for your comment that Duran's music has gotten worse (just slightly) with the more keyboard layers. I personally think that that, combined with the diminishing role of guitar, has made the music slightly more then slightly worse. I am in the camp that has a lot of issues with Nick's role in the band. Having said that, he has been the keeper of the Flame and I have to thank him for that. Good, balanced post Thankyou. However, CB is a fan of ‘Guitar Duran’ - he rams it down our throats enough times, much the same as I do I expect. Lol He’s just been neutral, looking at from both sides. But you’re right about ‘less guitar is more than worse’. Right from the off I was disappointed with Paper Gods. There is no killer song on that album for me - standard, mediocre, average, normal. So I’m thinking it can’t be just me who has that opinion. I mean what serious band would release ‘Dancephobia?’ I read an answer by JT on Reddit when he was doing the bass tutorials and he basically said that any successful commercial band will find it difficult to be taken seriously - which I found quite hard to swallow in all honesty. It’s almost like saying ‘ok, we’ll give up trying to be taken seriously’ hence Dancephobia. Then he said their turning point was Ordinary World. Of course that was Warren turning the band into ‘serious’ musos. But I think the turning point was Big Thing. hmmm. Wasn’t that when Warren started playing? Strange that one. And now we come full circle - throwaway pop in favour of riffs. This new album had better be ‘serious’ otherwise it’ll be another door closing on DD’s career. I'd have to say I am a fan of "Guitar Duran" as well, I'm worried that doesn't exist anymore though. In JT's chat with Roger one of them even mentioned they were forced to adapt to less guitar. I was disappointed with PG as well, especially coming off of AYNIN which was probably tied with TWA as my second or third favorite DD album (after Rio and DD1). I figure they are trying to balance between their hard core fans with AYNIN and commercial relevancy with PG. Regarding JT's comments on Reddit and Ordinary World, the band has said many contradictory statements throughout the years. Even if it was like saying "we give up though", Dancephobia served no purpose at all, I don't get it. Apparently they were obsessed with perfecting that song, they had a lot of versions. Why?? I do like a lot of Warren's work, Ordinary World and my favorite song of all time (Come Undone) were gems and Warren's doing. Like with Andy, band dynamics were his undoing. I am excited about the new album but am a little scared it will be more synth then guitar.
|
|
|
Post by taylorism on Jun 30, 2020 19:46:52 GMT -5
Yes, the chord progression a common blues one, but the melody is the one that got them into problem, and that has nothing to do with chord progressions. Of course DYBIS is so much more than just that verse part, and the rest of the song has nothing to do with the original, and at the end of the day, is a song I like 10k time more than Suzie Q. But it’s still takes work, thought and inspiration to think ‘hmm, I wonder what melody we can use for this verse?’ And so on. I mean much can be said for melodies. How much more variation is left? I can see why it went to court. Especially, that everything about the two songs is similar. Like you said before, I’m surprised that everybody agreed to it - or more than 50% did. Stevie was out of the picture then - I doubt Warren would have said much as he was a hired gun. They must have known it was a replica? I know what you mean, "how much more can you do with 12 half tones?". But the thing is, melodies aren't just a sequence of notes. There's rhythm, pauses, expression, attack and release, etc, etc. For something to have that many elements, to be all similar, for over 8 bars... it's a lot of coincidence. But i don't think they went and said "let's rip this off". Sometimes you have a melody in your subconsciousness, that you don't actually remember what that came from, and you could actually think you created it. It happened to every musician i know. Not talking about "hey, listen up!" and start playing Yesterday... LOL but maybe songs that aren't being play for a long time. Several times happened to me when composing, and thankfully i realized it before actually recording them... is so funny and sad when happens, but happens. That's why i said that the most strange thing about that for me was that nobody else outside the inner circle, said something to them.
|
|