http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
the first "habitable" planet has been discovered, suggesting their existence is more likely than previously believed.
but what is the distribution we are sampling from?
it seems odd, this fascination for finding other planets. I've said this before, but there is something extremely sad, extremely lonely and somewhat beautiful in the idea of humans being alone. Something tells me we are the only real "pieces" of life existing...what a terrible plan!
It's raining outside thus the slight melancholy. Time to push off to college the writing up of the prospectus has begun...and the day has just begun, in the temple of the king.
"Try again... must get through
Hear me now...
For I've very little time
Not much time... hear my call
Please get through... I am here..."
I amuse myself here; Your amusement is intended but boundedly so
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
The Final Frontier; New Beginnings
Iron Maiden's new album "The Final Frontier". As a major and long-time fan of this band that hasn't ever rested on past efforts, it is perhaps a foregone conclusion that I will say this is an excellent album...
More interestingly, it is the sort of review that this band has started attracting that is interesting.
One point of view is that: "What's with the length of the songs? Why is Iron Maiden doing prog rock? It is a sign of aging, the band is sounding tired etc "
Another point of view: "*snigger* Iron Maiden still around? I suppose 14 yr olds will always be around."
Another: "The long songs are okay but the shorter stuff is better. They should edit a bit more."
Last: "BEST ALBUM EVER. UP THE IRONS. BEST BAND EVER."
My take is that all of these are correct in some ways, and incorrect in others. Iron Maiden is doing prog rock, because being active musicians for 3 decades, they have bothered to learn their instruments. There is a presumption that since some of the thrill on their early albums - Killers, for example - is gone, the band has lost its vitality. I submit that most of those thrills were mostly of a cheap (although enjoyable) nature. Like a standard 12 bar blues thing, it is certainly fun, but as a guitar player you want to do other stuff.
It was always a band that played with long songs and shifting time signatures etc. It is a sign of a coming of age of the band that they now feel confident to pull some of the more interesting stuff off - and they don't do it by sacrificing listening pleasure. This was where the previous album lacked. Although there were patches of close to exceptional (I won't say brilliant) musicianship, as a whole many of the songs felt put together without a flow to them.
Contrast with Dance of Death or Brave New World, where there were 4 to 5 minute songs based off of one good idea (No More Lies is basically a stadium chant disguised as a song - not that there's anything wrong with that!) and 7 to 8 minute songs based off 3 good ideas (Dream of Mirrors, Blood Brothers and Paschendale are exceptions; The Thin Line Between Love and Hate is a very extreme example of a very good idea and a very bad idea in one song).
The major criticism is that this album is "No Powerslave". For the uninitiated, Powerslave is acknowledged as Maiden's best album thus far (by most).
My controversial opinion: many, if not all, are judging the band by their past accomplishments. Although that stuff is certainly very good, I believe the songs were set so rigidly to a pattern, that you could always see the next thing coming. Most songs off Powerslave confirm to this but the underlying melodies were simply exceptional. The succeeding albums worsened these tendencies, leading to a steady decline until the singer quit, one guitarist followed. A couple more forgettable albums followed.
Then the singer and guitarist came back suitably refreshed and with a different mindset. Now, what you have on this album is a much more dynamic band, the music is much more smooth than it has ever been, and save for a couple of songs and a couple of places in other songs, there isn't any place where I can point and say "yes, I knew that".
Now, it is an indication of how much I've grown used to the earlier Maiden, that I believe that this alone is worthy of credit. The ability to surprise is enough I would argue. However, there are a couple more things: the songs do have an urgency to them that was certainly not seen on previous releases. "Mother of Mercy" and "Starblind" are the best examples I can take. Most important, the guitar sound on this is much more alive, and there's certainly a different idea to most of the structuring of the songs.
There is still a little too much dependence on the intro - although even that is being understood better as displayed by the song "Where the Wild Wind Blows" (based off a stop-motion animated British movie in the 80s about a couple that commits suicide believing an earthquake to be a nuclear attack). The intro there is taken into the main verses of the song, which is then followed by a rather rocking rhythm bit, some tasteful soloing and the song ends with the intro. If they hadn't ended with the intro, I would have been happier; but well, this is good enough.
The best example of how people are unable to adjust their perceptions of the songs on this album is the first song: "Satellite 15". This is a tremendous thundering bass and drum driven piece with guitars sounding like parts of HAL, one of the freshest and most exciting things the band has ever produced - and almost everybody seems to hate it! Why? The guitar rhythms and the distorted vocals not only perfectly produce the atmosphere conjured by the lyrics, but the whole damn thing just rocks!
My own guess is that the next album - if there will be one - will display Iron Maiden with even better mastering of themselves. This marks in my opinion, a steady progression you can see in Brave New World, away from the Maiden of old and toward a much fresher, free sound. They've gone back and forth with it over the last decade, but they might just be about to really understand what they want to do. Put "Revelations" against "Mother of Mercy" to see what I mean.
More interestingly, it is the sort of review that this band has started attracting that is interesting.
One point of view is that: "What's with the length of the songs? Why is Iron Maiden doing prog rock? It is a sign of aging, the band is sounding tired etc "
Another point of view: "*snigger* Iron Maiden still around? I suppose 14 yr olds will always be around."
Another: "The long songs are okay but the shorter stuff is better. They should edit a bit more."
Last: "BEST ALBUM EVER. UP THE IRONS. BEST BAND EVER."
My take is that all of these are correct in some ways, and incorrect in others. Iron Maiden is doing prog rock, because being active musicians for 3 decades, they have bothered to learn their instruments. There is a presumption that since some of the thrill on their early albums - Killers, for example - is gone, the band has lost its vitality. I submit that most of those thrills were mostly of a cheap (although enjoyable) nature. Like a standard 12 bar blues thing, it is certainly fun, but as a guitar player you want to do other stuff.
It was always a band that played with long songs and shifting time signatures etc. It is a sign of a coming of age of the band that they now feel confident to pull some of the more interesting stuff off - and they don't do it by sacrificing listening pleasure. This was where the previous album lacked. Although there were patches of close to exceptional (I won't say brilliant) musicianship, as a whole many of the songs felt put together without a flow to them.
Contrast with Dance of Death or Brave New World, where there were 4 to 5 minute songs based off of one good idea (No More Lies is basically a stadium chant disguised as a song - not that there's anything wrong with that!) and 7 to 8 minute songs based off 3 good ideas (Dream of Mirrors, Blood Brothers and Paschendale are exceptions; The Thin Line Between Love and Hate is a very extreme example of a very good idea and a very bad idea in one song).
The major criticism is that this album is "No Powerslave". For the uninitiated, Powerslave is acknowledged as Maiden's best album thus far (by most).
My controversial opinion: many, if not all, are judging the band by their past accomplishments. Although that stuff is certainly very good, I believe the songs were set so rigidly to a pattern, that you could always see the next thing coming. Most songs off Powerslave confirm to this but the underlying melodies were simply exceptional. The succeeding albums worsened these tendencies, leading to a steady decline until the singer quit, one guitarist followed. A couple more forgettable albums followed.
Then the singer and guitarist came back suitably refreshed and with a different mindset. Now, what you have on this album is a much more dynamic band, the music is much more smooth than it has ever been, and save for a couple of songs and a couple of places in other songs, there isn't any place where I can point and say "yes, I knew that".
Now, it is an indication of how much I've grown used to the earlier Maiden, that I believe that this alone is worthy of credit. The ability to surprise is enough I would argue. However, there are a couple more things: the songs do have an urgency to them that was certainly not seen on previous releases. "Mother of Mercy" and "Starblind" are the best examples I can take. Most important, the guitar sound on this is much more alive, and there's certainly a different idea to most of the structuring of the songs.
There is still a little too much dependence on the intro - although even that is being understood better as displayed by the song "Where the Wild Wind Blows" (based off a stop-motion animated British movie in the 80s about a couple that commits suicide believing an earthquake to be a nuclear attack). The intro there is taken into the main verses of the song, which is then followed by a rather rocking rhythm bit, some tasteful soloing and the song ends with the intro. If they hadn't ended with the intro, I would have been happier; but well, this is good enough.
The best example of how people are unable to adjust their perceptions of the songs on this album is the first song: "Satellite 15". This is a tremendous thundering bass and drum driven piece with guitars sounding like parts of HAL, one of the freshest and most exciting things the band has ever produced - and almost everybody seems to hate it! Why? The guitar rhythms and the distorted vocals not only perfectly produce the atmosphere conjured by the lyrics, but the whole damn thing just rocks!
My own guess is that the next album - if there will be one - will display Iron Maiden with even better mastering of themselves. This marks in my opinion, a steady progression you can see in Brave New World, away from the Maiden of old and toward a much fresher, free sound. They've gone back and forth with it over the last decade, but they might just be about to really understand what they want to do. Put "Revelations" against "Mother of Mercy" to see what I mean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)