This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
So obviously photoshopped...
I'm not stating any opinion, instead I'm just asking for yours.
What I'm saying is that I never atually listened to their works (2 songs at random maybe, you know) and knowing they're still around and going now I'd like to BUT remembering the controversies around them (the only thing i remember well), I'm a little restrained.
That's why I'm asking. I'm just not willing to devote my time to a band that eventually fakes its musicianship.
Is (new) Rings Of Saturn actually legit?
Yep sure, just being clear on my request.I didn't mean your opinions
I meant more like, that's all you're really going to get here. People who dig the band will tell you that they are, and people who hate them or their recording methods will tell you not to waste your time. I saw you already checked them out and it's the same thing with me, just unlistenable for me. If I want to listen to something heavy and hectic I have other outlets.
No, but I would call someone a liar who said they "painted" their PhotoShop collage.Music is art and everyone's interpretation of art is different, you wouldn't tell someone not to paint just because its not your preferred medium would you?
I read in another thread from some guy who obviously knows some of the modern producing techniques (guess he was a studio guy himself) that there is a way of recording, where every single note is recorded one at a time and then put together in post-production. That way the guitars sound like midi/GP and ROS are actually using that style of production.
I can't confirm that it's true as I just read it, but it sounded legit to me.
Ok guys I'm done with the info so I thought I'd just get into the debate as I like having some chats.
As I said already I checked them back (not remembering their stuff but just the debate around it) and I personally don't like their music. Also, seems like ROS guitarist is actually able to play his stuff, but his style wouldn't impress me even if I was 14 again. So if you like it, good for you.
That being said, the subjective\taste\interpretative part is stated for me and I personaly don't care further for the time being.
As for the debate, in my opinion there are a few incoherent metaphors here and there.
Regarding the performance debate in general, for you who don't care about the legitimacy of someone's performance or the ability to actually execute something, then I personally can't see what art is about for you.
To me art is creation, and if I'm not personally able to create something myself how can I define myself as an artist?
My concern is about "human capital" and skills.
Random examples of my view (not ROS related) other than the ones I gave in one of my first posts here: think of I don't know, Shawn Lane, and take a random guy who claims to be playing at the same levels of speed but it was just a playback on guitar pro, still he admits to be playing that on his guitar even if that's not true.
Would you throw in the garbage all the practice hours, dedication and skills of Shawn by considering both performances at the same level, just because "you don't care if one's actually able" and "technology has to be accepted as a medium"? I certainy would not, I'd draw a line.
Another example, getting the inspiration from the above post; pretend that we had Photoshop back at Michelangelo's time. If someone stated to have painted the Cappella Sistina instead of him, but it was in fact just Photoshopped, would you give him credit?
That's what I'm saying.
Composing is just an abstract skill so you can't have shorcuts for that. But performance is performance...pretending is just stupid and disrespectful.
Aaaand again I'm not talking of electronica here, it doesn't matter at all. Again,I have no problem towards doing things virtually as long as it's admitted, I get upset when someone pretends to be able to do things the can't by using virtualisation as an excuse.