Log In
Register
4.14pm
11 November 2010
Offline
Sitar because Mellotron relies on tape loops. When those tape loops wear out, you’re S.O.L.. When the strings on a sitar break you replace them. You can just plug Mellotron sounds into a sampler on the computer for free if you really want them.
The following people thank Necko for this post:
Beatlebug, ewe2I'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 
7.26pm
10 March 2017
Offline Here’s a debate for the new year, which one of Gibson’s finest solid body electric guitars is better, the Les Paul or the SG.
While both guitars are great options, i’m voting SG for a few reasons:
1. The SG is the successor to the Les Paul. Back in 1960 Gibson Les Paul sales weren’t doing good so Gibson redesigned the guitar in 1961, renaming it the Gibson Les Paul SG and then later the Gibson SG in 1963 after Les Paul’s contract expired. However, they relaunched the Les Paul in 1968 and they’ve been coexisting ever since.
2. The Les Paul only has a single cutaway but the SG has a double cutaway and since the neck meets the body at the 22nd fret and there are only 22 frets, you’ll have no problem reaching up for those high notes and this guitar gives even a Fender Stratocaster a run for it’s money when it comes to fret accessibility.
3. The SG looks a hell of a lot better than the Les Paul IMO and it just screams rock and roll.
The only thing i will give to the Les Paul is that the SG is a thin guitar whereas the Les Paul is a little thicker which i like about the Les Paul.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
9.27pm
8 January 2015
Offline
On the other hand:
1 . The Les Paul is less bitey (less mid-range in its sound) which may account for its use across a wide variety of genres. I personally think these days you could make either sound like each other and no one would know.
2. The SG is supposed to be lighter than the Les Paul but whoever said that hasn’t picked up an SG junior which is a big slab of wood (I suspect they were using swamp ash or alder back in 2005) and is twice as heavy as my G400 pro. However modern SG’s are much lighter than their more vintage counterparts.
3. Les Pauls are generally not as neck-divey (ie the centre of gravity is further back in the body) as SGs famously are. This can make SGs more fatiguing to play and often require a padded strap to prevent slippage.
4. Related to that, the standard position for the strap pin on SG’s is just behind the neck joint instead of on the front of the top edge like a Les Paul. Many opt for moving that to behind the top cut-away to force the centre of gravity backwards.
5. SGs are definitely becoming more popular as both guitarists in Paul McCartney ‘s band use SGs as well as Les Pauls (Macca has a gorgeous psychedelic leftie LP), but historically have fewer famous players associated with them (not better or worse, fewer). Brian Ray has a signature SG.
6. SGs are more associated with P90’s than Les Pauls which started out with them and went to humbuckers early. P90’s are very much in vogue again.
That’s all I can think of right now 
The following people thank ewe2 for this post:
BeatlebugI'm like Necko only I'm a bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin and also everyone. Or is everyone me? Now I'm a confused bassist ukulele guitar synthesizer kazoo penguin everyone who is definitely not @Joe. This has been true for 2016 & 2017 
but I may have to get more specific in the future.
4.29pm
10 March 2017
Offline Where did you get the idea that SG’s are more associated with P90s, i’m not saying you’re wrong i’m just really curious because i know that Billie Joe Armstrong and Bob Marley are well known for playing Les Pauls with P90s in them.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
10.25pm
11 November 2010
Offline I was reading an article on shameless ripoffs on Cracked and I saw this on the list.
Here’s the thing: Dan Castellaneta openly admits having taken inspiration from Finlayson. Want proof? Video in spoiler. Relevant part begins at 0:40.
This got me to thinking… if someone openly admits to taking inspiration, can it truly be called a ripoff?
I tend to think no. I’d consider the term ripoff to only be appropriate if you are doing something immoral, such as stealing without giving credit. What do other people think about this? (And by this, I mean in general, not specifically related to d’oh.)
I'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017.
7.14am
1 November 2013
Offline 
It depends on how far you go with it. One little reference is ok but a beat by beat plot copy is too far.
9.54am
10 March 2017
Offline I agree with Starr Shine? on this one, it depends how far you go with it.
One type of openly taking influence from something is called a pastiche, a perfect example of this is The Rutles, who sound very similar to The Beatles but they add their own twist so i wouldn’t call these guys ripoffs. Another example would be a parody, the most popular parody artist is Weird Al Yankovic who makes parodies of several songs such as Bohemian Rhapsody (Bohemian Polka) Beat it (Eat It) and American Pie (The Saga Begins), i guess this would be considered a ripoff although he does write original lyrics and the backing tracks are rerecorded so you can go either way.
Finally, we have sampling but there’s 2 types of sampling. First, there’s using a sample for a small part of the song, Yellow Submarine uses a sample of La Reve Passe by Georges Krier and Charles Hemler at the end of the 2nd verse, i wouldn’t call this a ripoff because it’s only used for a small part of the song and it adds a creative twist on the original work. On the other hand there’s basing a whole song on a sample, the most popular example of this is U Can’t Touch This by MC Hammer which uses Super Freak by Rick James as it’s backing track, i’d absolutely call this a ripoff because they literally took what was on the record and used it as the instrumental for their song, all you have to do is take away the vocals and you can hear the song it’s sampling.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
4.10pm
11 November 2010
Offline See, I don’t think that sampling is always necessarily ripping off either. There are good ways to do it and there are bad ways to do it. You can comprise your song almost entirely of samples and still do something creative by mashing up songs that are nothing like one another stylistically and by messing with the song structure. You can also sample non-musical sounds as atmospheric background noise in music. There are certainly bad ways to do it, but there are many good ways to do it too.
The following people thank Necko for this post:
BeatlebugI'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017.
7.21pm
10 March 2017
Offline Here’s a new debate:
Do you consider Wikipedia to be a trustworthy source. I’d say yes because it’s accurate about 99% of the time and it has no bias.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
12.01am
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Yes. Every change that is made goes through a vast network of moderators, so any material not sourced properly is removed.
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
Beatlebug#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
2021 awards:
5.32am
18 September 2016
Offline Yes and no. Some entries are more credible than others. I think it’s best used as a starting point. You can’t use it as a citation for academic work. It can be affected by bias, inaccuracies and hoax information. But as a resource that’s free, it’s useful. Often the footnotes and links give better sources to look up.
“I know, Jerry, that you are as human as the rest of us, if not more so."
1.25pm
11 November 2010
Offline Wikipedia is good for settling a friendly debate, but don’t cite it.
The following people thank Necko for this post:
BeatlebugI'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017.
6.32pm
18 December 2017
Offline I mainly use Wikipedia as a source to look up birthdays.
No, not my friend’s birthdays, I remember those. (Mostly)
It’s good for famous people birthdays. If I didn’t have it I would have missed many excuses for celebration.
The following people thank TheWalrusWasBrian for this post:
Beatlebug
|
| I don’t know how to put it here. hello for the love of god hello
~~~
The Concert for Bageldesh
~~~
Walrian here! Not Fiddy, or anyone else, actually.
5.45pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline Dark Overlord said
Here’s a new debate:Do you consider Wikipedia to be a trustworthy source. I’d say yes because it’s accurate about 99% of the time and it has no bias.
Yes, with a healthy helping of salt. Y’know, everything needs salt to some degree. I consider Wiki pretty trustworthy for its usage.
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
TheWalrusWasBrian([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
8.44pm
26 January 2017
Offline I wonder what @Ahhh Girl thinks about Wikipedia.
"The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles!"
-Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
"We could ride and surf together while our love would grow"
-Brian Wilson, Surfer Girl
7.53am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline I think of Wikipedia in the same way it thinks about itself.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
Beatlebug, TheWalrusWasBrianCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
12.39pm
10 March 2017
Offline Does colorizing a black and white film ruin the experience.
I think it depends on the film, some films like A Trip To The Moon and Basket Case use colorization as an effect that enhances the film, the former being because there was no commercial true color film at the time and the latter because they wanted it to look super colorful. I think that adding color to these types of films doesn’t ruin the experience at all. In fact, i think it enhances it.
In the middle we have films like King Kong and Casablanca that were shot in black and white because that was the norm at the time but was later colorized by someone who had nothing to do with the film’s production. It doesn’t necessarily improve the experience but for the most part, colorizing these types of films doesn’t ruin it although there are exceptions.
Finally, we have films where black and white was specifically chosen for artistic reasons such as Young Frankenstein, Raging Bull, Schindler’s List, and Frankenweenie, colorizing these films would ruin the experience because you’re ruining the artist’s original intentions although i believe you should have the right to colorize these films if you choose to because preventing you from doing so would be infringing on your 1st amendment rights.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
1.45pm
11 November 2010
Offline It shouldn’t be done. That said, no opposition to A Trip to the Moon, because that was done at the time. Colorization is only an issue if it’s done long after the fact.
The following people thank Necko for this post:
BeatlebugI'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017.
4.36pm
18 December 2017
Offline I love black and white movies, they should stay that way. But sometimes I wonder what it would look like in colour… Well, I’d rather have it like it was back in the day.
| | I don’t know how to put it here. hello for the love of god hello
~~~
The Concert for Bageldesh
~~~
Walrian here! Not Fiddy, or anyone else, actually.
8.57pm
14 December 2009
Offline
I generally despise the practice of colorization of films, including non-narrative films. But I sometimes grudgingly accept the practice being done to documentary films if color reference still photographs exist, and if it’s done accurately. But this only applies if b&w was originally used out of necessity or convenience, and wasn’t the filmmakers’ original specific artistic intention.
The following people thank Von Bontee for this post:
BeatlebugPaul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
1 Guest(s)
