I've finally updated to something prettyish.
Enjoy! And discover some of the hidden joys of my lazy afternoons.
I've never been much for lyrics as I see the voice as a far more powerful and versatile instrument when you don't constrain yourself to purely singing words.[...]
As my Norsk skills improve, I am worried I will start to like some of my favourite tracks less because I discover that although being great performers and musicians, they might not be so fantastic at writing prose.
[...]
Jens recently dismissed a less known black metal act - Taake due to the lyrics, which he described as being quite simplistic and boastful. I understand he's not a huge fan of the sub-genre of Black Metal that derived from Burzum, so I wasn't expecting him to love the music side of Taake as they draw heavily on this, but I was genuinely surprised by the lyric comment.
Personally I pride myself on ignoring the lyrics. I feel that vocals are an instrument, that the words, if any, are an interesting side effect of vocals.
It's for this reason I find some bands impossible to listen to. People cry about how amazing the lyrics are. All I hear are a boring melody, a bad singer, and deathly dull guitar.
I do agree though that lyrics, as the final icing on the cake, can help make a song great. And terrible lyrics can ruin a song.
I've often felt that if I didn't speak English I'd like System of a Down a lot more. Their music and lyrical melody is perfect as far as my enjoyment is concerned, but their lyrics are so often terrible after-thoughts crapped out of a child's diary. They're very difficult to ignore.
Also, I've recently got into Serge Gainsbourg. He sings (mostly) in French. The songs are catchy, the music is simple and strange. The vocals are mixed very loud and right up front. Again, they're impossible to ignore, but luckily, and despite four years of French in high school, I (mostly) have absolutely no idea what he is saying. While listening I know instinctively that if I did know what he was saying I'd find much of it dull, childish and repetitive.
Not knowing the language forces the vocals into their rightful place, as an instrument making funny, interesting noises.
If you ever wonder why bands write random meaningless lyrics, this is why.
Google made a similar detail recently with Sony and Warner.
Universal is holding out...
The purchase was for $1.65b in Google stock. As Slashdot commenter tpengster says:
Keep in mind that Google is not paying dollars -- they are trading Google stock for YouTube stock. So even though $1.65b is a scary number, what you should be asking yourself is not whether YT is worth $1.65b, but whether it is worth 1.25% of Google.
That puts it into perspective quite nicely.
What I find frightening is that YouTube has only been around since February 2005. We live in a world where a company can grow into a global brand and be bought for $1.65b in a year and a half. Even with hundreds of copycats at their heals.
How did this all come about?:
Combine the lot with a snazzy name and bang! YouTube also wrote some excellent conversion tools that let you upload pretty much any format, they only restricted you on video length and uploaded file size.
Google Video had too many restrictions on the video file format, and confused their brand by selling some of their videos, as well as doing almost everything else in the background.
YouTube is somewhere to host video for free. It doesn't have to be anything else.
Ever noticed that the audio quality on YouTube is mono only and a bit crap? No, I didn't think so. Not many people do...
Update: The Age article on the topic indicates that Universal has signed up to YouTube:
In a move that appears to pre-empt the threat of legal action against YouTube, Universal Music Group and Sony BMG said on Monday they signed distribution deals with YouTube, following a similar agreement with Warner Music Group last month.