Page 1 of 2
#1
What techniques and composition phrases are used consistantly by the band Muse, to capture such an epic vibe, and get emotions out of you, you never knew where there?
#2
You mean how did radiohead do that, and then how did muse rip it off from them?
Life Plays With A Lot Of Distortion
#3
Quote by yawn
You're a funny man.


But try better next time. Maybe a joke about a chicken crossing the road. At least it'd then make some sense.


Ok, why did the chicken cross the road?

Because muse was playing on his side of the road.
Life Plays With A Lot Of Distortion
#4
hahaha, wow. radiohead was ahead of their time, and Muse sound nothing like them. totally different styles. you obviously don't know what you're talking about. both are extremely goo, don't get me wrong.
l> l> /\ l\
l>
l\ /~\ l/
#5
I don't know. I tried to get into muse, but their singers voice and style is just too similar to thom yorke's, and both, to me, seem to have the same hard rock meets electronica style to thier music, and its strange to me that no one sees the comparison.
Life Plays With A Lot Of Distortion
#6
Quote by gamayshark
I don't know. I tried to get into muse, but their singers voice and style is just too similar to thom yorke's, and both, to me, seem to have the same hard rock meets electronica style to thier music, and its strange to me that no one sees the comparison.
It is NOT Matt's fault that his voice sounds similar to Thom Yorke's.

Seriously, to criticize a vocalist because his voice sounds like someone else's is just absurd. It's genetics, dude. Blame his parents for copulating if you want, but don't blame him.

And the two bands' styles of music sound NOTHING alike. Radiohead started as an ethereal modern rock band, and has since found a comfortable niche in the genre of electronica-driven lullabies. Muse, meanwhile, has no particularly distinct sound - influences range from Queen to Iron Maiden to Tchaikovsky to System of a Down to Rachmaninoff to Jimi Hendrix to Nirvana to U2 to Rage Against the Machine to Schubert to Nirvana, etc. I've yet to hear Radiohead rock out as loud as Muse does in their hard rock material. Muse might have sounded similar to Pablo Honey-era Radiohead with their debut album, but since then Muse has worked quite hard to make a distinct identity for themselves, and it's not fair to pigeonhole them as Radiohead rip-offs for the superficial reason of the two vocalists having similar voices. Besides, why not blame Thom for having a similar voice to Matt? At least that would be playing fair.

Lastly, lots of people see that supposed comparison. Too many.


That said, this isn't the Bands & Artists forum, so hopefully this band-oriented discussion won't carry on much longer, and we can see whether or not the threadstarter wishes to respond.
#7
I saw that comparison at first, very much so. It somewhat faded as I listened to them more and more, though I won't doubt they sound very similar very often. I have similar vocals to the guy from the Pixies though, and I get that alot, and it's not my fault whatsoever, so I assume Muse is just as angry about the comments as I am.

To the threadstarter, I assume you want to know so you can fashion your own songwriting after some "epic formula" you hope to receive from one of us. It may sound rude, but how bout putting your blood, sweat, and tears into your own song so it sounds epic, and you can laugh at the kids who asked how you did it as if it were so easily to explain. They sound epic because they spent hours TRYING to sound epic.
'never a victim,' the role model said,
bang-bang, the bad guy is dead,
always a rockstar on eMpty TV,
the lesson complete, now the child has needs.
#8
I like both Muse and Radiohead, and I can see where the comparisons are drawn. I believe that Muse are influenced by Radiohead, but they sound nothing alike.

I too would be interested in understanding how to create and 'epic' sound.

Also, gamayshark would not like my music because my singing is heavily influenced by Thom Yorke and I sound a tad like him.
#9
Quote by yawn
^ Well, there are actually some concrete answers as to how Muse attains such an epic sound.

Gimme gimme gimme!

Threadstarter, about their music evoking emotions in the audience, the way I see it emotion in = emotion out. Of course, its all a matter of perception - physically, sound waves don't actually transmit feelings.
My name is Andy
Quote by MudMartin
Only looking at music as math and theory, is like only looking at the love of your life as flesh and bone.

Swinging to the rhythm of the New World Order,
Counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums
#10
Learn theory. Matt's classically trained so that probably helps him a bit. Analyze some of their songs and figure it out that way. I agree with Tsunoyukami, they sound nothing alike, but I can see why some people might think they do.

EDIT: What he said ^
#11
slow songs are usually romantic or sad
even slower songs are gloomy
faster songs are more exciting or happy
even faster songs are just ****in nuts
#12
Okay, it looks like there's some collective interest in identifying how Muse is able to attain such an epic sound, so I shall try to break it down as summarily as I can. I'm not really sure how to go about doing this, so I'll just cite some of their most popular songs as examples, and then maybe end with a concluding statement.

New Born
Undoubtedly famed as one of Muse's most epic songs. The epic quality of this song stems from a mixture of luring subtlety and grandiose flamboyance. The quiet celesta-esque arpeggios of the beginning establish a sense of mystery and wonder, and of course the contrast of the distorted guitar feedback gives this song an identity of progressive elements. The chorus is bombastic, and the band holds nothing back. Notice the subtle but effective use of string mutes to make things sound heavy. Remember, this entire track is only Matt, Dom, and Chris. Lyrically, Matt sings about something vague enough to sound omni-important, yet focused enough to maintain an air of wisdom.

Butterflies and Hurricanes
Again, the introductory subtlety factor is used. This song- conceptually at least - is in many ways similar to New Born: a luring first verse, inspirationally massive choruses, and more active following verses to keep up the pace. The piano cadenza, of course, is the zenith of this song's epic nature. Notice how transition between the standard part of the song and the beginning of the cadenza - a lengthy chromatic run of the piano and melodically jarring string accompaniments. What you're hearing is modulation. I can guarantee you that the piano cadenza of Butterflies & Hurricanes was not written for Butterflies & Hurricanes. This was a solo piano piece Matt had most likely written before, and decided he could fit it into the song and still keep things cohesive. I myself have done this (using past material in a new composition) many times. Again, notice the sparse nature of the instrumentation. The choruses sound massive, but it's only vocals, bass, strings, and drums. The verses sound grand as well, but neither the verses nor the choruses even have guitar!

Knights of Cydonia
This is what many see as the defining moment of Muse's epic sensibilities. In many ways, the band is parodying its own taste for the epic. The introductory sampling noises is an effective way of establishing the "spaghetti-Western-space" environment that this song is so famous for. This song is very obvious in terms of its epic nature - composing a song of such distinctly different movements is an easy way to present such a feeling. However, again, transition is key - and again, Muse excel. A guitar droning out the last note of one section while the rest of the bad moves on to the next section is a simple but effective way of keeping things cohesive, and the near-acapella bridge of the song gives it an anthemic quality. Notice the arpegiatted synth in the background. Lastly, the outro Iron Maiden-esque riff closes the song with a sense of both grandeur and straight-out hard-rockin' fun. Personally I prefer when they did this back in the era of Microcuts, but that's just me.

Space Dementia
Ah, this song is genius. First, the intro. So subtle, so luring. Perfect use of non-harmonic tones, and it immediately captures the attention of the listener. Then, the verse progression. Aside from the intimidating technicality of it all, the use of chords is brilliant - the pounding force of the octaves accompanied by the arpeggiated notes in unorthodox patterns is just beautiful. And finally, the chorus. Personally, I never use to pay much attention to the chorus; in fact I always used to think it was the weakest part of the song. But after I actually examined its score and looked at its actual composition - damn! The chord transitions and use of chromatics work in a way to create a beautiful set of tension and release. And the way that it all fits so well - never sounding out of place in the song - is undoubtedly an exciting

I could go on and on discussing Muse's compositional techniques (and indeed, it's quite fun), but I think those examples should suffice for now. But, upon analysis of Muse's repertoire as a whole, I've noticed several consistent things.

Arpeggios. Matt Bellamy fuckin' loves 'em. Sunburn, New Born, Bliss, Space Dementia (Chromaticism at it's finest! I'd love to further discuss this song if anyone's interested), Plug In Baby (minutely, but they're still there), Micro Cuts, Screenager (and such a lovely chorus that is!), Blackout, Thoughts of a Dying Atheist, Soldier's Poem, and so many more. What function does arpeggiation serve? Essentially, it keeps things from sounding too simple. Chords are so definite - a chord is a chord; you hear it once and you've heard it all. But arpeggios allow for more fluidity - they allow for spontaneity.

Sparse, massive instrumentation. A paradox? Almost. Numerically, Muse never employs more than four voices at a time (occasionally five, but only when the fifth voice is very quiet). How, then, is Muse still able to sound so huge? Each instrument takes up a MASSIVE part of the soundscape. Listen to the Absolution album. The drums are always heavy as fuck (except for the ballads), and the bass always sports a HUGE, thick presence. And of course, Matt's vocals are always the definitive moment whenever they're featured.

Speaking of Matt's vocals, remember the importance of vocal melody. Monotone vocal lines are boring and not epic in the least bit. The voice is an instrument, and it should follow scales likewise.

Another interesting aspect of Matt's compositional practices that I've noticed is what I've come to call "The Muse Rule of Three". Essentially, The Muse Rule of 3 observes that every great song on Origin of Symmetry is generally composed of 3 basic parts.

Some examples:

New Born
The chord progression during the intro and verses.
The chorus chord progression.The main riff.

A (intro and first verse)
B (main riff)
A (second verse)
C (chorus)
A (solo)
A (third verse)
C (second chorus)
B (main riff)

Bliss
The riff used in the intro and the verses.
The chorus chord progression.
The octave bridge.

A (main riff)
A (first verse)
B (chorus)
A (main riff)
A (second verse)
B (second chorus)
A (pre-bridge)
C (bridge)
B (third chorus)

Space Dementia
The piano part during the intro and verses.
The chord progression during the chorus.
That oh-so beautiful coda where the electric guitar finally comes in.

Plug In Baby
The main riff.
The verse part.
The chorus chord progression.

Microcuts
The arpeggio riff used during the intro and verses.
The chorus chord progression.
That wicked ending riff.

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. Screenager is primarily composed of two different parts, and Citizen Erased has the main riff, the verses, choruses, and the two soft parts. Nevertheless, this Rule of 3 still holds strong as a firm guideline for composing orgasmically awesome songs. Essentially, it decrees to write a song that uses three very strong, very well-thought out parts, rather than to risk failure by either stretching out only one or two parts or overburdening a song with too many different parts.

It should also be noted that the parts don't always have to sound exactly the same each time they're used. New Born, for example, plays the A part using piano the first time, and guitar "ska" strokes the next.

Anyways, Muse has also released songs using many more than 3 parts (KoC=4, Hysteria=4, Muscle Museum=5, Cave=4), and also less (Blackout=2, Falling Away With You=2, Map of Your Head=2, Endlessly=2). Still, the Rule of 3 manages to cover many other Muse songs, such as Starlight, The Small Print, Ruled By Secrecy, B&H, etc.

So...I hope you enjoyed this brief discussion of how Muse is able to attain such an epic sound. I love talking about Muse's music, so feel free to share your thoughts on this topic. =]
#13
Quote by gamayshark
Ok, why did the chicken cross the road?

Because muse was playing on his side of the road.




you have to give him credit for that one!

i like Muse.... but it made me giggle...
#14
Well.
If you're too arsed to read yawn's essay on the "epic formula".

When it's all broken down.
It comes down to contrast.
Dynamics in the context of music.

Soft to Loud.
Slow to Fast.
Atmospheric to Angular.
Low Pitch to High Pitch (regarding voice)
Sparse Setting to Dense Setting (eg. Soldier's Poem with all the harmonies)
Breakdowns (Muse does this ALOT)

This fits with nearly every rock band in existence.

But all in all.
It comes down to the song.
If you have a bad song, no amount of dynamics is going to help you make it "epic".
#16
I'd better check these songs out before starting complaining how one can DARE to compare Muse to classical composers.

Okay. First of all, you fanboys should stop treating Muse/Matt like they were gods. There are LOTS of musicians who can create such music with no trouble. Muse is complex... for a rock/whatever band, but they are NOT complex in a global musical way. It's music which can be played on a party without disturbing anyone. Plus, the change of pace or "evolution" in their songs goes really slow, so that even the dumbest listener can follow.
Please. I understand that you guys like them and I also respect them in a way, but stop being fanatics.

Space Dementia
First, the intro. So subtle, so luring.


Agreed.

Perfect use of non-harmonic tones, and it immediately captures the attention of the listener.


Non harmonic? The tones are quite harmonic. There is nothing really dissonant there, even more, there are octaves, which are highly consonant. The exception are some chromatic runs. They are building the tension + the cadence is moll-voiced. The melody just doesn't follow a strict cliché and is surprising for some people, also because two scales are mixed sometimes (just before the arpeggio part).

Then, the verse progression. Aside from the intimidating technicality of it all, the use of chords is brilliant - the pounding force of the octaves accompanied by the arpeggiated notes in unorthodox patterns is just beautiful.


The use of chords is SO typical, come on. The only thing that is special is that the tonal center is changing and that the arpeggios are switching octaves.

Arpeggios. Matt Bellamy ****in' loves 'em.


Great.

What function does arpeggiation serve? Essentially, it keeps things from sounding too simple. Chords are so definite - a chord is a chord; you hear it once and you've heard it all. But arpeggios allow for more fluidity - they allow for spontaneity.


The arpeggios in Space Dementia are also of that "you hear it once and you've heared it all", because they are not dynamic at all. They are just arpeggiated chords, really nothing special.
These arpeggios create an epic feeling, as they are acending (think of a kind of "awakening"/rising effect) and of rather "evil" nature (high ambitus, moll-voiced, maybe even diminished, I don't have any score at hand). But don't be too fast with your Bellamy-worship: Dimmu Borgir have done it before him and they did it much better (Dreamside Dominos, the arpeggios there are not just arpeggiated chords).


I don't want to attack you, I just don't like how people are thinking that bands like Muse are musical ambrosia. This is MASS MUSIC, just not to such an extent as other bands. Let's call it mass music for creating an "alternative" scene.

Feel free to ask questions.
^ seconded.

Äh, Sie wollen also mit Schlitz.
Last edited by Philipp Sobecki at Jun 27, 2007,
#17
Quote by Philipp Sobecki
Okay. First of all, you fanboys should stop treating Muse/Matt like they were gods. There are LOTS of musicians who can create such music with no trouble. Muse is complex... for a rock/whatever band, but they are NOT complex in a global musical way. It's music which can be played on a party without disturbing anyone. Plus, the change of pace or "evolution" in their songs goes really slow, so that even the dumbest listener can follow.
Please. I understand that you guys like them and I also respect them in a way, but stop being fanatics.


I understand where you're coming from, but try and remember the complete lack of a "bridge" genre between mainstream popular rock and truly complex music - if we're gonna get anal, there's always music that makes your own preferences look like the doodling of a five year old - you just haven't come across it yet.

To be fair, Muse are my favourite band, and originally i would have thought them theory-god super-virtuosos. Now i know they aren't - but really, what about posting some really tricky interesting stuff to prove your point and simultaneously introduce them to some new good music?

Quote by yawn
^ Well, there are actually some concrete answers as to how Muse attains such an epic sound.


To add -

Huge layers of guitars. Origin of Symmetry contains dozens of unplayable chords, because Matt recorded each note of each seperately, often doubling them across strings and reaching close voicings that aren't playable for the non-holdsworths of the world.

Simple, very effective use of dynamics and harmony. Simple ideas, strongly put and well done. That's what makes the songs REALLY work. New Born for example - who can say that they honestly didn't expect a MASSIVE riff at the end of the intro? The fact you know it's coming makes it all the sweeter. Similarly, Bela Bartok often introduces material in an anticipatory manner - seemingly insignificant parts turn out to be main themes that stretch across entire works.

Anyway, i have to go here and phone a landlord or two if i want a roof next year. I may/may not be back depending on how the mood takes me. Those two points are decent enough anyhoo.
#18
Muse is great but at times they can sound exactly like a MTV TRL mainstream band like MCR at times with songs like Time is Running Out and Hysteria (their most famous songs), Radiohead was and is innovative and creative in everyway possible, their music just simply stands out in alternative world
#19
Calling Muse a Radiohead ripoff is an insult to Radiohead! Thom Yorke and the gang have truly pioneered a fusion of rock and electronica. Muse just use a lot of distortion and reverb.
Quote by Godzilla1969
I love you, Muphin. You have great taste in music.

Quote by Pacifica112J
Muphin > You

The Cooperation
#20
Freepower: No problem. Listen to Allan Holdsworth. His stuff is ahead of our time and not from our world. Try "Water on the Brain Pt. II" or "Wardenclyffe Tower", for example. "Proto Cosmos" is one of his "easiest" songs to understand, check out youtube. But remember, you won't get a clue about the music until you've heared it several times, and you have to pay attention. This is superduper theory without clichés, surprising, totally unique etc. Just give it a try. But I understand that not everyone wants music which he must be paying really much attention to while listening.
I just think that most of our music got boring.

Let's see... I like Blind Guardian, they are pretty "light and easy", but somehow complex and interesting. Same goes to the band Equilibrium. Arcturus make pretty interesting avant-garde stuff. Dimmu Borgir might sound like stupid black metal, but once you've payed more attention, you discover that they are really interesting, too. Same goes for Necrophagist. They are NOT just random notes. Check out their scores/tabs. Meshuggah are really great, too. Their rhythmwork is awesome. Nevermore is great, too, Opeth as well. And of course LOTS of Jazz/Fusion/whatever.
^ seconded.

Äh, Sie wollen also mit Schlitz.
#21
*sigh*


All right, here's the obligatory "Why Muse isn't a rip off of Radiohead, and perhaps may even be better" post. I hate to do this, because I don't see music in competitive terms, but apparently it's become necessary - again.

Show me a Radiohead song that exhibits such beautiful (and technically demanding) piano work as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x82JdegSbYA

And here are some more moments of Matt on the piano (including a beautiful excerpt from Citizen Erased):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V91sQozzFgc

And some more, backstage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dSULBD2XRo&mode=related&search=

But of course, Matt doesn't just play piano. He's quite a talented guitarist as well (no Darkshines though! ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zgmlGDTOKA&mode=related&search=

More guitar excellence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVDuJQx1s20&NR=1

And let's not forget his proficiency at classical guitar style (sadly the only vid available is a subpar cover):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT-Lsezic-o

And of course, we mustn't forget the excellent accompaniment Matt has in the form of Dom and Chris. Excellent drumming and excellent basswork.

I hope you watch all of all the videos. If you still think Muse sounds like Radiohead, I suggest psychiatric treatment. And if you still think Muse is a subpar group of musicians, I'd like to hear your own revelatory work.

PS - To be honest, the best way to hear a band isn't by hearing a bunch of compiled clips. Listening to their full songs gives the most enriching experience, so keep that in mind.

Quote by Muphin
Calling Muse a Radiohead ripoff is an insult to Radiohead! Thom Yorke and the gang have truly pioneered a fusion of rock and electronica. Muse just use a lot of distortion and reverb.
Hopefully these may change your mind about that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vQSy4VpkgQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTNc6YsMSjo&mode=related&search=
Last edited by yawn at Jun 27, 2007,
#22
I never once said Muse is a ripoff of Radiohead, I implied that Radiohead is a much better band.

No doubt, Matt can play some classical piano and guitar, but when it comes to creativity, composition, and overall musicianship, Radiohead destroys Muse.

Look, sorry if I sound ignorant, the only album I've bought by Muse is BH&R because it got good reviews, but I really don't like it.

EDIT: ...oh, you weren't talking to me?
Quote by Godzilla1969
I love you, Muphin. You have great taste in music.

Quote by Pacifica112J
Muphin > You

The Cooperation
#23
I edited my post.


Refresh boy!


Edit: That a boy.

Edit: Just BH&R?! Dude, judging Muse by that album is like judging Radiohead from just hearing Kid A. And you know how annoying it would be to hear someone discredit Radiohead after only having heard that album. Origin of Symmetry is miles ahead of Black Hole & Revelations, and indeed Absolution is too.
Last edited by yawn at Jun 27, 2007,
#24
^ god, BH+R is terrible by their old standards. Give me origin and showbiz with selected Absolution, and keep that **** for yourselves. (apart from assassin, KoC, and SMBH, obvo )

Quote by yawn
Show me a Radiohead song that exhibits such beautiful (and technically demanding) piano work as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x82JdegSbYA

And here are some more moments of Matt on the piano (including a beautiful excerpt from Citizen Erased):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V91sQozzFgc

And some more, backstage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dSULBD2XRo&mode=related&search=

But of course, Matt doesn't play piano. He's quite a talented guitarist as well (no Darkshines though! ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zgmlGDTOKA&mode=related&search=

More guitar excellence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVDuJQx1s20&NR=1

And let's not forget his proficiency at classical guitar style (sadly the only vid available is a subpar cover):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT-Lsezic-o


This is a rubbish post. Matt, btw, is a terrible classical guitarist - pickstyle and no polyphony? Im sorry, but it's just not true that he's that technically gifted - i'm appalled you mention his piano playing with awe but not his singing - i know many basically average pianists who are well capable of any of the muse piano repetoire.

And besides, atm, all you're doing is comparing technical proficiency - i know at least a couple of INDIVIDUAL musicians who play all the instruments you've mentioned at a fantastically higher level than both bands combined.

Freepower: No problem. Listen to Allan Holdsworth. His stuff is ahead of our time and not from our world. Try "Water on the Brain Pt. II" or "Wardenclyffe Tower", for example. "Proto Cosmos" is one of his "easiest" songs to understand, check out youtube. But remember, you won't get a clue about the music until you've heared it several times, and you have to pay attention. This is superduper theory without clichés, surprising, totally unique etc. Just give it a try. But I understand that not everyone wants music which he must be paying really much attention to while listening.
I just think that most of our music got boring.

Let's see... I like Blind Guardian, they are pretty "light and easy", but somehow complex and interesting. Same goes to the band Equilibrium. Arcturus make pretty interesting avant-garde stuff. Dimmu Borgir might sound like stupid black metal, but once you've payed more attention, you discover that they are really interesting, too. Same goes for Necrophagist. They are NOT just random notes. Check out their scores/tabs. Meshuggah are really great, too. Their rhythmwork is awesome. Nevermore is great, too, Opeth as well. And of course LOTS of Jazz/Fusion/whatever.


You know, before i made some changes to my original post i was linking to funnels by holdsworth!

I'm (but of course) a holdsworth fan, and have a few hours of his stuff lying about here. Mostly im into shawn lane - a much simpler idiom, but an equally advanced technique and musical intellect (really!). Holdsworth just snuck up on me one day and i realised how great it was and HEARD it, but that took ages - anyone listening to this convo, be prepared for that to happen to you, and don't be disappointed (as Phil has said) if you don't get it right away.

I'm not into most of the metal bands you mention - Nevermore and Necrophagist aren't heavy enough for me, but i'm fairly familiar with them. I own all the Meshuggah that's been released bar their EP, huge fan (i'm now quite comfortable playing in 7/8 over 4/4 thanks to them).

My turn!

Check out -

Shawn Lane
Guthrie Govan
Greg Howe (sorry for the patronising madskillz, lol)
The Berzerker (first 3 albums only, really)
Yngwie Malmsteen ("Who?" I hear you ask! )
Bela Bartok
Zorn
Sir Millard Mulch
Atari Teenage Riot
Bumblefoot/Ron Thal
Dream Evil
Das Ich

And get this, i recently uploaded a large selection of cool tracks i had for some friends, so...

Feel free to download and enjoy. Nice to meet a fusion nut in a muse thread. With breasts this could be perfection!

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=J46P6S74
#25
Quote by Freepower
This is a rubbish post. Matt, btw, is a terrible classical guitarist - pickstyle and no polyphony?
Meh, this was a b-side after all. The mere fact that he's able to have such quality musicianship in an obscure b-side is pretty impressive to me.

Besides, it is a good composition. It doesn't have polyphony, but so what? I've yet to hear more intricate guitarwork from, say, Johnny Greenwood.

Can't be comparing Matt Bellamy to John Williams or Fernando Sor; that just wouldn't be fair, now would it?

Quote by Freepower
i'm appalled you mention his piano playing with awe but not his singing - i know many basically average pianists who are well capable of any of the muse piano repetoire.
Playing a cover is one thing. But composing? That's the impressive element.

Quote by Freepower
And besides, atm, all you're doing is comparing technical proficiency - i know at least a couple of INDIVIDUAL musicians who play all the instruments you've mentioned at a fantastically higher level than both bands combined.
Again, if they can compose original material on the levels of Matt Bellamy, then link me up!
#27
Quote by yawn
1)Meh, this was a b-side after all. The mere fact that he's able to have such quality musicianship in an obscure b-side is pretty impressive to me.

Besides, it is a good composition. It doesn't have polyphony, but so what? I've yet to hear more intricate guitarwork from, say, Johnny Greenwood.

Can't be comparing Matt Bellamy to John Williams or Fernando Sor; that just wouldn't be fair, now would it?

Playing a cover is one thing. But composing? That's the impressive element.

Again, if they can compose original material on the levels of Matt Bellamy, then link me up!


Sure, he's a ****ing brilliant classical-influenced-rock-guitar player (although still with well subpar technique, considering that thats the domain of Yngwie and his clones), but you said classical, and -no offense- i don't know you well enough to be sure whether you made a mistake in writing that or believing that.

Composing is obivously the important element - **** knows that my friend Gabriel eats Matt alive at the technique aspect, but couldn't out compose him - i was just making a statement about objective technique.

And speaking of those links, take a look at these chappies -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL4AMwrAcyE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGP_-5pgVs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlJJPyc4xvM - theres some piano. He also played drums to a virtuosic level although i don't know of any footage, and obviously played bass extremely well.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_y68c9DDZk - this guy played with shawn, and while he's not QUITE the virtuoso shawn was on guitar, he's a bit better on drums. I don't know where you can pick up on his singing and guitar/bass playing, but he's rather good at it, and you can hear it on his DVD. More info - http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Sean_Rickman.html

Those two are quite closely related and in a popular medium, but there are hundreds of other virtuoso multi-instrumentalists out there!
#29
Quote by Muphin
One of Jonny's Compositions

Gets really ****in good at around 2:00.
Pretty cool. The music was pretty good, though I must admit, it reminded me of the type of user-submitted stuff I might hear on iCompositions.com. The visuals though - woah! Cool stuff. Especially with the Santa Clause-looking guy, and the stilt guys with the skulls masks. And the lady with the dog. o.O

Quote by Muphin
Again, cool stuff. I loved the short excerpt from High and Dry. \m/

From watching these two videos, it's become apparent to me that comparing Matt Bellamy and Thom Yorke may just be on the levels of comparing "apples to oranges". Thom Yorke seems to be fond of the 20th century styles of abstract expressionism - indeed, many f the clips I heard reminded me of soundscape renditions of works by guys like Jackson Pollock. In contrast, Matt Bellamy takes a much more traditional approach to songwriting in regards to his emphasis on straightforward uses of harmony and melody. Johnny Greenwood seems to be focused more on fluidity and and sonic expression, whereas Matt Bellamy is more focused on creating definitive compositions with clear-cut structural elements.

Quote by Freepower
Sure, he's a ****ing brilliant classical-influenced-rock-guitar player (although still with well subpar technique, considering that thats the domain of Yngwie and his clones), but you said classical, and -no offense- i don't know you well enough to be sure whether you made a mistake in writing that or believing that.
Ah, yes. Sorry, I didn't really consider all the implications that could be taken from that statement. I just meant it in the general sense.

Cool links, though I must admit they're not my style of music. =]

Quote by Clownmite
How about you stop arguing which is better when the threadstarter only wanted to know how to sound like Muse?
This isn't arguing; this is enjoyable discussion of the similarities and differences between two bands.

For good ole dumbed-down arguing, please see the Pit™.
Last edited by yawn at Jun 27, 2007,
#30
Quote by yawn
Cool links, though I must admit they're not my style of music. =]

Np, figgered as much - did you download that mp3 pack i linked to? Thats pretty varied and less esoteric, you might likee.
#32
Muse and Radiohead are both different bands.

However.
Radiohead are definitely more creative than Muse, Muse's chord progressions are very predictable. Some of their vocal melodies are too.
Muse is definitely showcases more technical proficiency, but Radiohead utilizes theirs alot better. Besides, technical proficiency doesn't make a song good.
#33
Quote by Freepower
Those two are quite closely related and in a popular medium, but there are hundreds of other virtuoso multi-instrumentalists out there!


Don't be forgetting Charles Mingus now. Arguably one of the greatest double bass players in jazz ever and he was also able to produce a few albums worth of him playing jazz piano. Then there's people like Neal Morse, and you know... Indeed, tons and tons of others.

Anyhow, and this just goes to prove the point that it's all in the listener... Muse don't evoke anything at all from me, except for perhaps a slight feeling of agitation. Same goes for radiohead.

The wonders of music, eh?
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt.
He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice.


Remember: A prudent question is one half of wisdom.

Click.
#34
Freepower: Oh yeah, Shawn is awesome! He really mastered the melodic stuff, it's really great! And his technique! *drool* =D

7/8 over 4/4
Hah yeah! I'm writing a song atm where a part is 15/16 over 4/4. The difference is pretty subtile, but still noticeable. It will get more into the foreground when I'm done with the drum part... oh well, whatever

Guthrie Govan
Greg Howe (sorry for the patronising madskillz, lol)


I always didn't like their blues influence. Any recommendations?

The Berzerker (first 3 albums only, really)


Yeah, they are funny =D

Yngwie Malmsteen ("Who?" I hear you ask! )


? ;D

Bela Bartok
Sir Millard Mulch
Atari Teenage Riot
Bumblefoot/Ron Thal
Das Ich


Oh, I don't know them at all.

Zorn

yeah! do you know the recordings of naked city from amsterdam 1992? they are awesome! i love their music

Dream Evil


Kings of cheesy lyrics! But their music is really well done.

And get this, i recently uploaded a large selection of cool tracks i had for some friends, so...

Feel free to download and enjoy. Nice to meet a fusion nut in a muse thread. With breasts this could be perfection!


Thanks! Just finished the DL. And I agree with that thing about perfection
^ seconded.

Äh, Sie wollen also mit Schlitz.
Last edited by Philipp Sobecki at Jun 28, 2007,
#35
I've come to realize that there are two type of music lovers. Technical vs. Emotional music. Most people love one or the other, and sometimes both. The people that like both are the ones that love Muse. Blending the complex technical aspects keeps the music fresh and enjoyable and the emotional tensions and release implement emotional connection to a piece of music, making it personal. Muse are always thinking of new ways to invent. They are pioneers i believe. They said they didnt want to make a sequel to absolution, my favorite album. Matt finds new and exciting ways to express himself musically, even implementing a Kaoss Pad into a guitar! Yes every artist produces non favorable pieces from time to time, but if i had to chose one album to keep with me my whole life, it would be Absolution.
#36
Quote by rabidsilence
I've come to realize that there are two type of music lovers. Technical vs. Emotional music. Most people love one or the other, and sometimes both. The people that like both are the ones that love Muse. Blending the complex technical aspects keeps the music fresh and enjoyable and the emotional tensions and release implement emotional connection to a piece of music, making it personal. Muse are always thinking of new ways to invent. They are pioneers i believe. They said they didnt want to make a sequel to absolution, my favorite album. Matt finds new and exciting ways to express himself musically, even implementing a Kaoss Pad into a guitar! Yes every artist produces non favorable pieces from time to time, but if i had to chose one album to keep with me my whole life, it would be Absolution.
Sorry, but I've definitely got to disagree with you there.

People don't either love "technical" music or "emotional" music. People find emotion in different types of music. There are many instances of technically demanding music that are absolutely beautiful. For some obvious ones, Metallica's Fade to Black, John Butler's Ocean, Tool's Schism, Radiohead's Paranoid Android, and about several million others. And of course, most classical music is technically demanding, and yet much of it is absolutely beautiful. My own personal favorite examples would be Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 and Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 3.

And besides, Muse isn't really all that technically demanding. What I love about the band is the music - more specifically, the melodies and harmonies. Hell, I like the simple chorus of The Small Print just as much as the solo of Citizen Erased. Both are beautiful, regardless of the instrumental virtuosities required to play them.
#37
True. Muse is of course a very strong influence on me. They inspire me. Would it be fair to say that they capture the right energy in the most pulse pounding song to the smooth ballad of Blackout. I just find myself rising to profound emotional heights when i close my eyes and listen to them. I saw them live a month or so back, and the energy i felt was undescribable. I don't understand how some people could not be emotionally connect to the chorus of stockholm syndrome. I can understand that people have tastes and dont like certain types of music but, I lose my head in these masterpieces
#38
Quote by rabidsilence
I've come to realize that there are two type of music lovers. Technical vs. Emotional music. Most people love one or the other, and sometimes both. The people that like both are the ones that love Muse.


Seriously, wise up. It's not like that and never has been.
Page 1 of 2