Music Theory and Technique Vs. Passion and Soul: An Epic Tag Team Battle!

[SlickDaddySlick]

What do you think is more important when composing and performing music: Music Theory and Technique or Soul and Passion?

I had a little . . . fun argument with a member of another forum about this. I told him that without a good knowledge of music theory, having soul and passion over theory is bullshit and that it is rewarded to only those who spend their time studying theory and technique. The guy say that you need more soul and passion and that music theory and lessons isn't really needed to play an instrument, learn scales, and key signature.


So, what do you guys think.

[Liontamer]

Well, the way the argument's structured is intentionally and needlessly divisive. Music theory is excellent and a great tool, and also isn't mutually exclusive from enthusiasm, so it's not like they can't and don't coexist. That being said, you don't need to know or be able to articulate music theory to create good music, and I've heard music theory "experts" put out boring material.

If you had to pick one, then enthusiasm wins, but I think it's short-sighted to, as your opposing POV implies, disregard the benefits of one side just to make the choice for the other. Especially if your choice is theory, which is the wrong choice. :lol: The moment one points out a successful composer without theory knowledge or the ability to write their own sheet music, your argument doesn't hold.

[LuketheXjesse]

I would have to say passion matters more. I mean, you don't need technical ability and insane knowledge in music theory to be a good musician. Sure you have more places to go with ability and knowledge but does that mean you can make good music? I mean, the majority of video game musicians use synthesizers and whatnot for making music. There's not a lot of technical ability there, and yet look at Stickerbrush Symphony from Donkey Kong Country 2. Beautiful song. Then there's the band Demons & Wizards. There's barely any technical ability there and yet they have some of the most emotional, passionate music I've heard from any band. Here's a prime example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Keg7B1EYxw

I think we know which wins here. (Though it is fun to watch people show off like Yngwe Malmsteen ;)

[cobaltstarfire]

I think it depends on the person too. Some people need the theory, while others will just make something cause they have a neat sounding idea in their head.

I think there's no argument to be had because they can come hand in hand, or they can be totally separate, and all variations will produce good music.

[LuketheXjesse]

Some artists with just technical ability will just be way too show offy and it won't be all that great.

DragonForce doesn't change their style at all in any song. It's just all a bunch of technical ability. Granted they're a good band (though not an essential one :|) but they're not all that creative.

But hey, some people show off well so I guess maybe you're right.

[zircon]

I mean, the majority of video game musicians use synthesizers and whatnot for making music. There's not a lot of technical ability there

Excuse me? Using synthesizers means you don't have technical ability?

[LuketheXjesse]

Isn't using synthesizers just using a lot of computer programs and button pressing? If I misjudged this, I deeply apologize and feel very stupid :P

But technical ability means having skill with something. You know, practicing for years to get good at an instrument. If a synthesizer doesn't take that, then I can't really call it technical ability :\

But that's just what I think.

[cobaltstarfire]

Yeah uh, having technical ability in writing a piece of music has nothing to do with what kind of medium is used for the notation.

Using a synthesizer is no different from noodling around on any other instrument and writing down what sounds nice to you.

[LuketheXjesse]

Hmm...but is using a synthesizer really difficult? No, noodling around and writing down what sounds nice is actual passion and writing ability, nothing to do with technical ability. Technical ability is being able to play really hard stuff. It could sound terrible but if it's hard to play, it's technical ability.

[Sil]

I've found that a lot of well respected composers who claim to have no musical training or knowledge of theory are actually well-versed in the same conventions that general musical theory attempts to explain. Let's face it; most of us are exposed to the same music growing up, especially where movies and their soundtracks are concerned, and really the best understanding of theory comes from exposure and pattern recognition over time. You don't have to know what V-I is to know it sounds good or to use it yourself. You just hear it all the time so you're bound to be influenced by it.

Similarly, classical theory doesn't attempt to explain the VI-VII-i progression you hear in 99% of pop music (especially J-pop) and film scores, but it's a convention you pick up just from listening to a lot of those things.

So really there's no need to sit down and study textbook theory unless you want a classical understanding beyond what you pick up naturally.

Also consider that theory is more a way of explaining why something works rather than a source to draw ideas from. I've actually found a balance between the two where I would say I "feel" my way through composing a melody, and then use theory to enhance the counterpoint and voice-leading.

[Liontamer]

Excuse me? Using synthesizers means you don't have technical ability?

Of course not. That would mean it's video game music or something.

In any case, the debate really should be about whether being able to articulate theory is critical to being a good musician. Good musicians have an intrinsic understanding of theory regardless. Not being able to articulate or understand theory literally limits the ability to communicate, but that's not part and parcel of being able to make good music as an individual.

[LuketheXjesse]

there's no need to sit down and study textbook theory unless you want a classical understanding beyond what you pick up naturally.

He's right, you know.

Not being able to articulate or understand theory literally limits the ability to communicate, but that's not part and parcel of being able to make good music as an individual.

Also right. But I didn't say all video game music lacked technical ability. Though most of it does. Some ReMixes here change that around.

[cobaltstarfire]

Hmm...but is using a synthesizer really difficult? No, noodling around and writing down what sounds nice is actual passion and writing ability, nothing to do with technical ability. Technical ability is being able to play really hard stuff. It could sound terrible but if it's hard to play, it's technical ability.

Now that you have said that, I don't really see what "technical ability" has to do with ability to compose good music.

I used to have "technical ability" at playing the trumpet, but I would be lying if I said I could regularly compose anything that was good sounding. I'm not really sure I could say anything I have written is even partially good. (you'd have to ask sadorf, if he even remembers who I am :P)

[LuketheXjesse]

Now that you have said that, I don't really see what "technical ability" has to do with ability to compose good music.

I used to have "technical ability" at playing the trumpet, but I would be lying if I said I could regularly compose anything that was good sounding. I'm not really sure I could say anything I have written is even partially good. :P

NOW you're getting what I mean. And you're right, you DON'T need technical ability to write good music, which is why passion and soul and actual writing talent always win.

And at least you HAVE technical ability at Trumpet. I was (and still am) terrible at it. Why? Because my 6th grade teacher failed to tell me that my mouth position was bad and now I have to practice all over again with a different mouth position. I hate middle school. And my middle school band teacher.

[DrumUltimA]

From a composition standpoint, they go hand in hand. The emotional quality of a piece can be greatly augmented by a superb construction--and can be destroyed by a terrible construction.

[1337 1]

From a composition standpoint, they go hand in hand. The emotional quality of a piece can be greatly augmented by a superb construction--and can be destroyed by a terrible construction.

Furthering that point, one can have all the technical ability in the world, but if you have no emotion or passion going into your music, then that music may be dull and lifeless. Its much like the links between history and memory (if that made no sense, look up Mark Raphael Baker's "The Fiftieth Gate", thats a great read).

[LuketheXjesse]

Furthering that point, one can have all the technical ability in the world, but if you have no emotion or passion going into your music, then that music may be dull and lifeless.

Hit the nail on the head, if I do say so myself.

[Drayzon]

I think that there needs to be balance for the two. You could have all the soul and passion in your music that you want, but if you don't know any music theory, composition is that much harder. Likewise, If you know nothing but music theory, then it really limits the kind of music you can make.

Using guitar soloing as an example, when I was younger, it used to amaze me that guitarists could solo the way they could. I thought that playing a solo was random notes, and it wasn't until I started taking guitar and learning music theory that I realized that pretty much all guitar solos following one kind of scale or another. SCALES are music theory. Even if you know just the simple blues penatonic scale, a solo will sound infinitely better then passionately playing random notes. On the other hand, knowing 20 trillion scales won't help if you don't have any feeling in the music, and it comes out as a random string of notes.

Here's an example of theory without any soul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C6XzzDDWOs

Fantastic technique, but I wouldn't want to hear it in a real song.

[TheHands]

Passion: Any random jerk off hitting his fist against the side of an acoustic guitar, wailing at the top of their lungs about the woman that cheated on them.

Technique: Dragonforce, a band that won't matter in ten years' time, except for maybe inspiring a few guitarists.

Both: Bob Dylan, David Bowie, old Metallica, The Dresden Dolls, Nine Inch Nails, Nightwish, Dream Theater, Vanessa Mae, etc.

Mixing for the win.


ALSO! As a guitarist for the last 8 years, I can tell you outright that using a synth to perfection is just as difficult (if not moreso) than any other instrument. Aside from being (basically) an electronic piano, you also have to take abstract sounds and make them sound the way you want them to. That's really fucking hard, harder than sweep picking and just knowing a pentatonic scale and hitting every third note in it, in alternating reverse order like most metal guitarists do for giggles when they want to wank on stage. Maybe not as hard as 8 finger tapping, but pretty high up there.

[Rozovian]

Working with synths is like building a guitar. Anyone can take a box and a plank and tie some strings to it, but you're not gonna make it sound pretty that way.

I have minimal formal music theory, I've learned pretty much everything by playing and writing music. When I read up on music theory, it's not as much about learning new things, it's more about finding words for the things I've learned and connecting my terms for things with the formal terms.

The grade school music theory I've got is in swedish, which doesn't really help much either.

[WillRock]

I think that there needs to be balance for the two. You could have all the soul and passion in your music that you want, but if you don't know any music theory, composition is that much harder. Likewise, If you know nothing but music theory, then it really limits the kind of music you can make.

Using guitar soloing as an example, when I was younger, it used to amaze me that guitarists could solo the way they could. I thought that playing a solo was random notes, and it wasn't until I started taking guitar and learning music theory that I realized that pretty much all guitar solos following one kind of scale or another. SCALES are music theory. Even if you know just the simple blues penatonic scale, a solo will sound infinitely better then passionately playing random notes. On the other hand, knowing 20 trillion scales won't help if you don't have any feeling in the music, and it comes out as a random string of notes.

Here's an example of theory without any soul.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C6XzzDDWOs

Fantastic technique, but I wouldn't want to hear it in a real song.

Yeah, I remember the first time I saw that guy play on youtube, hes fast as fuck but he is so so obsesed with speed that he has no melodic skills what-so-ever, which actually proves my view on technique vs soul a valid point, which is that all the technique and knowedge of theory in the world is useless if you don't know how to use it, although I bet this guy has no knowedge of theory anyway.

[Kanthos]

Isn't using synthesizers just using a lot of computer programs and button pressing?

You're a DT fan, albeit one who apparently favours Kevin Moore over Jordan Rudess. Think about the keyboard parts in the songs of theirs that you like. What makes them work? It's not just the technical ability of the player as a pianist/keyboardist; it's the work that goes into sound design, figuring your way around constrained hardware (ex: Jordan switched from one Korg keyboard to the Korg Oasys as his touring instrument a few years back because it has more onboard memory so he could load more samples in it). Keyboard players also have to think about how to organize the sounds: are they layering different sounds? Do they have several keyboards or synth modules and one or two master controllers where they have to think about MIDI to get it working right? Similarly, any hack with fast fingers can plug a guitar into an amp; part of the skill of being a guitarist is coming up with the right set of effects and using them correctly to craft the sound you want. Sound design is very much musical and is also very much technical.

As for software-based music tools, the same thing applies. Any hack can hit a bunch of buttons and call it a song. Virtual instruments and DAWs are no less instruments than guitars and keyboards, although for many they are ones that follow a different recording process and aren't easily performed live. Then again, it's not uncommon for artists to bring laptops with them on tour, if they want more versatility, and to play sounds live. Lyle Mays from the Pat Metheny Group is a great example. His stage setup on the last two PMG tours consisted of a few (maybe 3, not a lot) keyboards and synths, a MIDI grand piano, and a couple laptops. He controlled the software synths on the laptops from his other keyboards in realtime; I can think of only one song where they use any playback at all, and it's because the sounds are too electronic and too layered to have one person play them back live. Lyle had to do the sound design in software before the tour and then work with the software (via MIDI) while performing. The computer is becoming more and more of a "legitimate" instrument as technology improves.

[Drayzon]

Yeah, I remember the first time I saw that guy play on youtube, hes fast as fuck but he is so so obsesed with speed that he has no melodic skills what-so-ever, which actually proves my view on technique vs soul a valid point, which is that all the technique and knowedge of theory in the world is useless if you don't know how to use it, although I bet this guy has no knowedge of theory anyway.

Theory includes sweep picking, which is mainly what this is.

And the reverse of your point is true: all the soul in the world is useless if you don't know how to use it.

[LuketheXjesse]

You're a DT fan, albeit one who apparently favours Kevin Moore over Jordan Rudess. Think about the keyboard parts in the songs of theirs that you like. What makes them work? It's not just the technical ability of the player as a pianist/keyboardist; it's the work that goes into sound design, figuring your way around constrained hardware (ex: Jordan switched from one Korg keyboard to the Korg Oasys as his touring instrument a few years back because it has more onboard memory so he could load more samples in it). Keyboard players also have to think about how to organize the sounds: are they layering different sounds? Do they have several keyboards or synth modules and one or two master controllers where they have to think about MIDI to get it working right? Similarly, any hack with fast fingers can plug a guitar into an amp; part of the skill of being a guitarist is coming up with the right set of effects and using them correctly to craft the sound you want. Sound design is very much musical and is also very much technical.

As for software-based music tools, the same thing applies. Any hack can hit a bunch of buttons and call it a song. Virtual instruments and DAWs are no less instruments than guitars and keyboards, although for many they are ones that follow a different recording process and aren't easily performed live. Then again, it's not uncommon for artists to bring laptops with them on tour, if they want more versatility, and to play sounds live. Lyle Mays from the Pat Metheny Group is a great example. His stage setup on the last two PMG tours consisted of a few (maybe 3, not a lot) keyboards and synths, a MIDI grand piano, and a couple laptops. He controlled the software synths on the laptops from his other keyboards in realtime; I can think of only one song where they use any playback at all, and it's because the sounds are too electronic and too layered to have one person play them back live. Lyle had to do the sound design in software before the tour and then work with the software (via MIDI) while performing. The computer is becoming more and more of a "legitimate" instrument as technology improves.

I do understand that there is a lot of sound layering there and stuff to think about, and I didn't mean to demean synthesizing. All I had meant by that was that they aren't hard to actually play, but now that I think about it can they actually be "played"? Thinking up innovative ways to use them can take skill.

[WillRock]

Theory includes sweep picking, which is mainly what this is.

And the reverse of your point is true: all the soul in the world is useless if you don't know how to use it.

You have a point about the sweep picking.

Ok, scratch what I said before, he does have knowedge of theory, as well as melody, as he does play in key at the begining of the video, but as soon as the sweep picking comes in... ouch :C

I guess the they all go hand in hand, you need technique and emotion in your playing and musicial knowedge to create good music. One completes the other.

I do think it is a shame that some guitarists today are just obsesed with speed nowadays, like this guitarist here, and herman li from dragonforce to name another. There is more than one way to play the guitar :(

[LuketheXjesse]

I do think it is a shame that some guitarists today are just obsesed with speed nowadays, like this guitarist here, and herman li from dragonforce to name another. There is more than one way to play the guitar :(

Herman Li was the perfect example

Now here's a good example of soul and skill at once

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SIJ4zvmzJ8

There's SO MANY time signature changes throughout the song and lots of technical ability, and yet is also one of the most original and awesome compositions I've ever heard. Soul and skill, united.

[djpretzel]

There's a couple different topics going on here. My two cents:
You can teach music theory, but you can't really teach enthusiasm or passion.
Music theory and proficiency at playing an instrument really aren't the same thing... theory can be grasped by the average student, but instrumental/vocal talent is partly innate and partly gained through repetition, i.e. practice.
Both solid theory knowledge (which I lack) and proficiency at playing an instrument (ditto, for the most part) can change the way you actually compose and present options that wouldn't be there otherwise. It's hard to compose a wildly impressive solo that you couldn't actually play, and through playing such material yourself you get ideas about how to write similar parts. Or so I've been told :-o
That being said, I'll explain my own personal stance, which may not be right for most people... or anyone. I've found that, even with my relatively thin theory knowledge and untrained keyboard playing, there are literally tons of arrangement options open to me for any given source material, and I can almost always do what I want to. I guess this is because, musically, I've never been drawn to forms or genres or artists that emphasize impressario, extended soloing. I can appreciate DT, etc., but I'm more about the concise, Zen-like melodic focus on a few key intervals that, if not just right, would ruin (imo) an arrangement idea. That aspect of arranging - not only knowing what you could potentially change in a melody (while keeping the soul intact) but favoring one approach over the other... that's something that all the theory in the world doesn't necessarily help with. You could call it passion or enthusiasm... I think I'd call it style.

[WillRock]

Herman Li was the perfect example

Now here's a good example of soul and skill at once

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SIJ4zvmzJ8

There's SO MANY time signature changes throughout the song and losts of technical ability, and yet is also one of the most original and awesome compositions I've ever heard. Soul and skill, united.

Not bad, dream theater are awesome. I have a very different example of soul and skill, I think this is one of the best (and very different) examples of soul and skill in music.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JqM0NRUW7yI

EDIT : Oh and I have to say that DJP hit the nail on head imo.

[LuketheXjesse]

Ah, Joe Satriani. I've heard great things about him. Never actually got to hearing him though. This is a sexy song. Very 80's feel to it. Yes, that right there is passion. Much different, like you said. DT's a far more...how should I put it...random band. I could get into that song. I'll considering looking him up more. I'm pretty sure you like Steve Vai too, then?

[Wiesty]

Hmm...but is using a synthesizer really difficult? No, noodling around and writing down what sounds nice is actual passion and writing ability, nothing to do with technical ability. Technical ability is being able to play really hard stuff. It could sound terrible but if it's hard to play, it's technical ability.

look up keith emerson on youtube, prove me wrong.

[TheHands]

Ah, Joe Satriani. I've heard great things about him. Never actually got to hearing him though. This is a sexy song. Very 80's feel to it. Yes, that right there is passion. Much different, like you said. DT's a far more...how should I put it...random band. I could get into that song. I'll considering looking him up more. I'm pretty sure you like Steve Vai too, then?

Surfing With the Alien = Greatest thing a human can do with aliens and a guitar.

Vai and Satch are both good examples of technical proficiency and musical theory intergrated with the passion for your music. Malmsteen is an amazing example of nothing but proficiency and theory. He's tallented, but he doesn't really care what he's doing.

[DarkeSword]

As long as you can at least appreciate DT I won't care, but if you tell me they have no skill or passion, I can't take you seriously at all.

You know what? Please stop being such a gushy fanboy. You like DT, we get it. :|

[WillRock]

Ah, Joe Satriani. I've heard great things about him. Never actually got to hearing him though. This is a sexy song. Very 80's feel to it. Yes, that right there is passion. Much different, like you said. DT's a far more...how should I put it...random band. I could get into that song. I'll considering looking him up more. I'm pretty sure you like Steve Vai too, then?

Steve Vai is a lot more experimental than satch but satch is more commercial, you should look his music up, its very similar to video game music (his music would be perfect for racing games)

Surfing With the Alien = Greatest thing a human can do with aliens and a guitar.

Vai and Satch are both good examples of technical proficiency and musical theory intergrated with the passion for your music. Malmsteen is an amazing example of nothing but proficiency and theory. He's tallented, but he doesn't really care what he's doing.

Hmm... surfing with the alien has the hits, but his best effort is the extremist, brilliant music.

Malmsteen is also great, he created the neo-classical genre, but he is one the more show-offy guitarists, but I agree with the theory comment, malmsteems knowedge of scales is great.

However, Joe satch takes the award for technical theory knowedge, his knowedge of music theory, and scales simply outstripes basically every other guitarist I know of, not to mention the emotion and creative melodies he writes simply makes his music essential listening imo.

[Drayzon]

look up keith emerson on youtube, prove me wrong.

Even better...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbdVvH_0rCs

Rick Wakeman is a god among men.

[LuketheXjesse]

He could so be in Dream Theater. Or Symphony X (there, happy now?)

Seriously, he's amazing.

And DarkeSword, haven't you ever had a song or musician you enjoyed so much that you wished everyone knew about them? You just had to share this song or musician with everybody? That's what a deep appreciation for music is. I'll outright admit I took it too far on a few occasions, most of which weren't supposed to be taken seriously to begin with (listening to a band is not an achievement, duh) but that's not the case in this thread. I'm not saying you don't appreciate music at all, I mean, you make music. But surely you've had that feeling before, at least once, and you know what I'm talking about.

Malmsteen is an amazing example of nothing but proficiency and theory. He's tallented, but he doesn't really care what he's doing.

He got kicked off of the G3 tour for being such a cocky prick, FYI. Although he is talented, he sure is full of himself.

[Drayzon]

And DarkeSword, haven't you ever had a song or musician you enjoyed so much that you wished everyone knew about them? You just had to share this song or musician with everybody? That's what a deep appreciation for music is. I'll outright admit I took it too far on a few occasions, most of which weren't supposed to be taken seriously to begin with (listening to a band is not an achievement, duh) but that's not the case in this thread. I'm not saying you don't appreciate music at all, I mean, you make music. But surely you've had that feeling before, at least once, and you know what I'm talking about.

I have, but you already have it in your sig. No one else needs to hear/read it several times.

No offense to Dream Theater, John Petrucci is insane.

[LuketheXjesse]

You are right. I'll just let the sig start speaking for itself. ;)

...and how is that an offense? John Petrucci IS insane.

[Drayzon]

You are right. I'll just let the sig start speaking for itself. ;)

...and how is that an offense? John Petrucci IS insane.

I just didn't want you to think I was hatin' on Dream Theater.

[WillRock]

He got kicked off of the G3 tour for being such a cocky prick, FYI. Although he is talented, he sure is full of himself.

He did? I didn't know that...

I do think that he is a little cocky, but I say in his defense, If you were as talented as him and did what he has done for rock music, I think most people would be. He may be cocky, but he is a great guitarist who has earned that right I guess. Or thats the way he sees it ;).

[LuketheXjesse]

He did? I didn't know that...

I do think that he is a little cocky, but I say in his defense, If you were as talented as him and did what he has done for rock music, I think most people would be. He may be cocky, but he is a great guitarist who has earned that right I guess. Or thats the way he sees it.

Maybe I shouldn't have brought that up, as I did hear it from a somewhat untrustworthy source. But he was on G3 only once and after that he was never back on, so there is evidence...sort've.

I wouldn't think I'd be the greatest guitarist ever and think I know everything. You've always got to be open to new things and hear the ideas of others instead of just passing them off as average joes. NEVER decide you know everything.

I just didn't want you to think I was hatin' on Dream Theater.

Even if you were, I would just ignore you. I've heard people here say the blasphemous phrase "their music is terrible." At that point you just don't care :\

On a side note, we're so off-topic. But reaching a conclusion was so easy we might as well be :)

[WillRock]

I wouldn't think I'd be the greatest guitarist ever and think I know everything. You've always got to be open to new things and hear the ideas of others instead of just passing them off as average joes. NEVER decide you know everything.




My personal opinion is the same as yours mate, music is only limited by your imagination there is always something new to learn :)

[LuketheXjesse]

My personal opinion is the same as yours mate, music is only limited by your imagination there is always something new to learn :)

SPEAKING of which...

You people hear me RANT about DT all the time, but I will never truly 100% think they are the best band out there. They're just the best band that I know of. If I ever find a band that makes better music than DT, I will cry :-o

[WillRock]

SPEAKING of which...

You people hear me RANT about DT all the time, but I will never truly 100% think they are the best band out there. They're just the best band that I know of. If I ever find a band that makes better music than DT, I will cry :-o

Yeah, and then you'd change your sig and start ranting about this new band (joke)

[LuketheXjesse]

If there had to be another band it'd be demons and wizards

[SlickDaddySlick]

Surfing With the Alien = Greatest thing a human can do with aliens and a guitar.

Vai and Satch are both good examples of technical proficiency and musical theory intergrated with the passion for your music. Malmsteen is an amazing example of nothing but proficiency and theory. He's tallented, but he doesn't really care what he's doing.

You know what? Please stop being such a gushy fanboy. You like DT, we get it. :|

Steve Vai is a lot more experimental than satch but satch is more commercial, you should look his music up, its very similar to video game music (his music would be perfect for racing games)



Hmm... surfing with the alien has the hits, but his best effort is the extremist, brilliant music.

Malmsteen is also great, he created the neo-classical genre, but he is one the more show-offy guitarists, but I agree with the theory comment, malmsteems knowedge of scales is great.

However, Joe satch takes the award for technical theory knowedge, his knowedge of music theory, and scales simply outstripes basically every other guitarist I know of, not to mention the emotion and creative melodies he writes simply makes his music essential listening imo.


Dammit! You guys beat me to Vai and his mentor!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp1fLW-DS8Q

No words can describe this song!

[WillRock]

No words can describe this song!

I have a word... epic. Great album as well.

[po!]

which is more important.. well that obviously DEPENDS.. depends on the person and the type of music

but if you wanted to phrase the argument in more concrete terms.. what would i rather listen to.. 100% technical / 0 % soul.. or 100% soul / 0% technical... i'd probably pick the 100% technical

[IbanezNinja]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7B1OKdpTJo

i like both