church music

As a worship player, I know what you mean. But understand showing off is an attitude, not what is played. Keep it in taste with the song.
 
Cagey said:
You're over-thinking it. A solo is not necessarily a grandstand, it's a more complex treatment of the melody by a single instrument, perhaps a break for a slight departure to change or focus the mood/message, which eventually returns to the main theme.

This exactly.  Sometimes it's just to re-inforce the mood/message, or re-capitulate the melody.

Even though I play my 7 string on the worship team frequently, I'm cautious of how I play, who I'm playing to and anticipating their reaction, which to me, the less is more attitude applies.  I don't really want to be noticed, but if I am, it's not as much of a distraction in the service.  If I just shredded away without it reinforcing what's already there, it would be completely self indulgent and that would be wrong.
 
Will the worship head allow any solos from someone who worships the great spaghetti monster in the sky?
 
Boy! I'll bet she's fun in bed!

I'LL TELL YOU WHEN YOU'RE DONE!!

)(*@#*&^_(*&@_)&_) _*&()@#(*  *(&#$_&_@  _*&)(^!^!^!__)&*$  _)*&@#(*$&_)*(_&(@^(*# 
 
TonyFlyingSquirrel said:
Cagey said:
You're over-thinking it. A solo is not necessarily a grandstand, it's a more complex treatment of the melody by a single instrument, perhaps a break for a slight departure to change or focus the mood/message, which eventually returns to the main theme.

This exactly.  Sometimes it's just to re-inforce the mood/message, or re-capitulate the melody.

I'll add to this - the more you're spotlighted - the more of the melody you probably need to incorporate into your solos. There's a reason "Sleepwalk" was the only instrumental to ever hit #1. The only reason it doesn't have words is talkboxes weren't invented then. :)  "Supporting Solos"/"dynamic rhythm guitar" is kind of a fascination of mine.  Even the 64th note triplets doesn't have to be out of place. Alex Sklonick did a marvelous job of "tastefully flashy guitar in situ" with TSO. I wish I had more good examples. 
 
Yeah, to say Diamanda Galas is an acquired taste is to assume perhaps too much about the taste being susceptible of acquisition.  I like her, too, but I wouldn't spin her greatest hits at a cocktail party.


I think John Paul Jones of Led Zep fame was her collaborator for a few years in the '90s.
 
hannaugh said:
exalted said:
hannaugh said:
Do you honestly think you're going to be able to figure out what happens after you die while you're still alive?

I am totally open to finding out the secrets of the universe.  However, since there is no proof that god does not exist, I'm not going to rule it out. 

No, because I honestly know what will happen after I die.

I will be cremated, and my ashes will do the same thing any ashes do - be ashy.

Why do you think anything magical happens after you die? Is it because someone implanted the idea into your head, or because death is a scary concept?


And furthermore, it is impossible to prove a negative. Try proving to me that Leprechauns don't exist. Or that there isn't an invisible moon orbiting earth. Or that there is no such thing as 'god'.

All three are equally impossible. The burden of proof lies with the claimant - not its detractors.

Who says god or souls are magical?  I think it could be a force more than anything else, like a part of nature.  I think whatever happens to your consciousness when you die (whether it goes somewhere else or it stops altogether) is natural, not supernatural.  I'm just saying we don't understand it, there is a lot we don't know, and it could be something very weird that many would consider "supernatural" or "magical". 

I'm not firmly devoted to any belief or system of beliefs, but I keep my mind open to all possibilities.  I would not be at all surprised if somehow we found out 100% that there is no god or afterlife (well, I would be surprised because we found out, but I wouldn't be surprised that there was nothing there).  I enjoy believing in a larger consciousness to the universe rather than "it all happened by accident", so I tend to lean slightly in that direction, but I am fully prepared to change my ideas if I observe something that points me in a different direction.  I just think it's crazy to firmly believe that there is nothing unseen and bizarre that is beyond our comprehension, or really to be married to one idea about any of it period.

I'm totally with Christopher Hitchens on this one, there is just no reason to believe any of the theistic claims of the world. I think once you remove the shackles of those particular world views, pondering what we have actually discovered about the universe and our existence has been immensely liberating and stimulating for the imagination. Without risk of offending I have to add that I just find the views in theology boring, baseless and dull in comparison with what we know today about the universe.

Many great works were commissioned by the church though and here is my favourite :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwVETTkzqfk
 
When I was young they told me that our world's existence was a combination of chance and 'Billions and Billions' (tm) of years.  But discoveries in genetics have blown Darwin's concept of a 'simple cell' out of the water.  The current theory is that earth was seeded by space monkeys.

The bottom line is that the Universe was either created by internal forces or external forces.  The choice is yours.  And, the implications of that choice is yours as well...

https://www.facebook.com/ClaptonIsGodOfficial
 
Back
Top