relentless

That chorus would fit nearly every song they've written. As for the musical content, I'm expecting what the GazettE has pretty much always done: mid-tempo rock tracks with a few ballads tossed in for variation; but what has me interested is whether they're going to transfer the theme from the teaser to the album, or if it's just marketing. It would be pretty cool with the atmosphere set in the teaser to have an album that compliments it in some form or the other to fit a concept.

Mendelssohn's 3rd Symphony: Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli Beethoven's 16th Piano Sonata (and underrated gem)

Mendelssohn time! Trauergesang, Op.116 Die erste Walpurgisnacht String Quartet No.6 in F minor String Quartet in E minor, Op.44 no.2 Hebrides Overture, Op.26

Rameau (great French opera composer): Zelenka (one of the best composers of sacred music of the Baroque, right next to Bach): Bach's Cantata "Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben", BWV 147: Mendelssohn's Lieder ohne worte: Schubert's Ganymed:

No. Gimmicks tend to get old when it features the same presentation for ~30 years. Take note: this is separate from enjoyment of the music. If you like the music some VK bands make, I encourage you to keep listening and just ignore all the dresses and stuff unrelated to the music.

1. Do you trust Crowd-Funds? No. 2. Have you ever given money to any form of Crowd-Fund? Yes. 3. What band`s do you think you would support if they had a Crowd-Funded project? None 4. Do you think crowd-funding is a sustainable practice (can it be used often or only on occasion), and that many bands can use it at the same time, or does it present an even greater price-tag to fans? No, because it puts the consumers (listeners) and artists in an awkward position where the former feel an even greater sense of entitlement for helping to fund a project. I gave a band $10 to make an album, and for perks I got a digital download of the album and guitar picks. Because the band wasn't prepared for the amount of backers, it took them over a year to get all the perks shipped, and in the meantime many that backed the project were demanding a quicker turnaround or a refund. Suddenly, bands / artists more than ever are at the mercy of the consumer and have greater reliance on their satisfaction, and have increased pressures to distract from the music-making process. It's a trend which I hope dies soon. 5. If Crowd-Funding became more popular, would that create a greater wealth gap in the music industry, where more popular bands can sustain more releases and advertisement, while smaller bands can not succeed or compete, and labels are not as profitable so fewer bands can actually exist on a visible level? Even though this is already relevant in popular music, it would create an even greater divide. A major band could start a crowd-funding effort, set the goal at $25,000, and easily double that. Hell, they could probably even triple it no problem. Some bands would do the honorable thing of taking that extra money and putting it into better production, others I'm sure would hold onto it and spend at their discretion.

I find the lack of Brahms here disturbing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vOr-9ywpL4

I sort of agree with you. I agree that they can sometimes be a dull live act; but I enjoy how they run through their songs for a set. In fact, I wish more bands did it to create an atmosphere for a show. Instead of stopping and announcing each song, a good setlist to convey the proper mood tends to give the better experience. Though I guess that depends on the kind of band performing, doesn't it? When it comes to live shows, I hold atmosphere above most of the experience because that's one of the only qualities that make the shows special, and I think Dir en grey do a decent job at that. The only problem I have is how boring the audience tends to be, and that's the only thing that would prevent me from seeing them live in the first place. There was one show I went to where the audience was good, NYC in 2009, other than that it's always the same: people pack in, wrap their arms around rail, every one behind them packs in like sardines, and once the show starts no one moves. People are more worried about their view of the band than they are the experience of hearing them perform live. Add to that the sheer horror from members of the audience when a pit gets started, and it just ends up as awkward for everyone. At that point there is little reason to see them live.

Can't quite get into Haydn, huh? He's definitely worth re-listening to if you ever get the chance. His oratorios (Die Schöpfung and Die Jahreszeiten) stand alone in the classical style and are often considered to be his best works. Hell, he even created the String Quartet genre by accident, and his contributions there are just as good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYyvpDUBCh0 Also, awesome choice for Schönberg. Lately I've been making a conscious effort to listen to more works from the 20th Century. In some ways it's not entirely different from previous periods of music, it just requires a different kind of focus.

"it"? What's "it"? What are you referring to when you think I left out a part of your post to accuse you of not saying "it"? You're grasping for straws here, big time. In scholarly study when you are pulling from a quote, you choose the relevant portion to discuss -- as I did previously. Any thing that is irrelevant (not pertinent to the discussion), will be ignored. It seems like you're having serious difficulty of trying to figure out why I quoted that post -- to demonstrate you were not just talking about scenes. You have since revised your statement saying you were talking about other things as well. It may be convenient to me because I didn't have to dig far to find your own contradictions; but for the sake of the polemic? I was practicing discretion by making sure that only relevant portions remained. I viewed parts of your post irrelevant, unless you would like to demonstrate how they were? Otherwise, that is what is called "irrational". I've openly stated why I quoted your post (why this is an issue, I have no idea -- and you think I'M nitpicking..). You can choose to believe there's some conspiracy in me quoting your own words; but you won't get far with that belief. I am not presenting an argument as much as I am correcting you on your poor job of articulating ideas. You got defensive, and as evident from recent posts you are getting upset. I never said I wanted you to "speak" like I do, I merely sought clarification, which got you upset and caused you to assume malicious motives (when there are none). That's really the only reason why I'm still carrying on at this point. You've made it personal, and that is something I find to be one of the most immature moves you can pull. You got defensive, then upset, and started trying to make attacks on WHY I've been engaging in conversation with you. It's especially disappointing when I have taken great care to refrain from such childish antics. Perhaps I'll keep this in mind for next time so I can better engage a topic without causing some to be so combative. My apologies.

Which is incorrect. And just because "people" do it, does not make it correct. That is a textbook example of fallacious reasoning known as "ad populum" "Conveniently missing"? Someone is evidently getting a bit defensive. And no, that was not for the sake of convenience, it was for the sake of relevancy. When you said the "entire" topic was about musical scenes, I quoted your own words which showed a diversion from that. You have since revised your statement to where you were now talking about bands within musical scenes and their marketing, which is not "entirely" about musical scenes as a whole. Do you see the error? This is a forum, so the fact your comments were not addressed to me is irrelevant when the nature of a forum is to allow ideas and different opinions on them. Just because your comments were towards someone else does not mean you couldn't have taken the time to properly articulate what you were trying to say. Your lack thereof and my responses are merely a consequence of this. Miscommunication. Was it truly clear? How so? WHAT was clear about your "one perspective"? What does "one perspective that my word choice worked from" even mean? You keep using these extremely vague phrases without any intrinsic meaning to them nor clarification. Excuse me if this is seen as "nitpicking"; but when someone is unable to properly articulate their points I'm going to have questions so I can understand them better. You know, it's the essence of understanding another's opinion and point of view. You becoming incredibly defensive to this line of discussion is unnecessary and off-putting, I'm sorry to say.

Except, the "entire" discussion wasn't about scenes. If that was the case, you would never have said the following: Not only is the discussion about different bands in different genres, you start discussing the very music the band's are making. And when you make an incredibly vague point that something is the antithesis of something else (note: you never address scenes, you only addressed the genre's by name. A scene =/= a genre), you're going to have to expect said comment to be clarified because you're lumping obscure points in with each other and equating them. I mean, you COULD have clarified "scenes" from the start because there are several topics going on in the discussion (bands taking conventions from other genres, bands switching sound, marketing gimmicks, the music they're making); but because you didn't I questioned your premise.

No. When someone does not clarify something so crucial as to distinguish between music and those that inhabit its communities, it becomes difficult for proper discussion as seen here. If you took any offense to my line of questioning and disagreement, rest assured that it was out of clarification and in no way malicious. Thanks for your understanding, and for your clarification.

No, you have apparently "missed the memo" on what Visual Kei is. I'll requote the Wiki entry: Notice that last part? "However, visual kei acts play various genres, including those considered by some as unrelated to rock such as electronic, pop, etc." A Visual Kei act can take on any genre or style and if it meets the conventions of the visual style (i.e. "the use of varying levels of make-up, elaborate hair styles and flamboyant costumes, often, but not always, coupled with androgynous aesthetics"), then it's "VK" and acts in no way as a contradiction of, or "anithesis" to another unrelated form. That doesn't even make any sense. You are trying to equate a musical scene with the content (i.e. music). You are trying to make the argument that the image of many underground punk bands (that admittedly do carry forms of the image you've stated above) have to be adhered to when writing in that style for a VK band? Musically, there is very little that is different between Glam and Hardcore, the only difference is minimal and found in texture. If you want to re-iterate that the musical SCENES are in complete contrast, then I would agree; but the MUSIC isn't.

In regards to music I agree; but reasoning like that opens the flood gates to an understanding that Visual Kei can be anything that is foremost visual, which isn't true. Visual Kei is a specific style, in a specific part of the world.

Move over, Mozart's C minor Mass, time to make way for the greatest setting of the Mass in the classical period -- Beethoven's Mass in D, "Missa Solemnis"

Except that's not true at all.

Damn, I need to listen to more Chopin. I have a bunch of works by him; but never took the time to dig into them outside of the Nocturnes, Ballades, and Scherzi. For me, my love of Bach comes from his Cantatas and various sacred works: Cantatas for Christmas:

Elegant is the perfect word for Arrau's playing, especially on the outer movements. I tend to be very laid-back when it comes to individual interpretations, and even though I have my preferences, I tend to only draw an issue when something is clearly messed up like on Karajan's ancient recording of Brahm's German Requiem (chorus enters on the wrong note) or if the chosen tempo is painfully slow. The slower sections of Arrau or Schiff don't bother me, the playing compliments those sections really well; but when someone like Daniel Barenboim extends the third movement of the Hammerklavier to over 20 minutes(!), then it starts to get a bit excessive for me. And then there's the aforementioned Schiff who took that movement and gave it the quickest interpretation I've heard (15 minutes), which is admittedly my favorite. Speaking of Schiff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRWd-kzKoBw This DVD performance of the English Suites is amazing. Schiff's latest recordings of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier and the Goldberg Variations are among my favorite, and I wish at this rate he would record the English Suites again with this level of energy. Full performance: Schiff's Beethoven interpretations, as well as his hour long lectures on each of them, are worth listening to.

And then Beethoven showed up and ruined everything https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iacDzYv7YCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOjSho99uC4

I sense more Papa Haydn is needed in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WNykhWtn1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImxwlZ37N2g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyEtugA3iK0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVl8E3PHUMA And some Mozart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyNFElawfTg

Understandable; but as a user to this forum I would have at least expected a consistent tone among Admin's and Mod's, which is the only reason why I brought attention to it.

I love how this, is followed by: and

For many, music is a serious art. Simply hearing a song or piece of music isn't enough when the most subtle aspects are hidden within how the music works. And in many cases, digging into a piece of music to understand it further can reveal the wit of the artist. Many people don't bother with this approach and would prefer to do what you do: just listen to what is pleasing to you. That's the whole point of music, isn't it? Even to those that love to analyze music, this feeling is never lost; but there is at least something more there, under the layers of sound that can be just as rewarding as hearing a beautiful melody.

I wonder why...