Writes pop song in 17/8

>writes pop song in 17/8

get on her level

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mpv_grse6G4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

why
it barely gets replies

it always does

never a significant amount though

just about enough for me
i am a simple man

I'm starting to like you, man

i'm gonna eat your ass

It's nice knowing OP lazy spam threads are getting no attention.
Literal waste of time.

youtube.com/watch?v=mpv_grse6G4
>main riff, verses, and chorus in 13/4
>bridge in 9/8
so fucking what

it's literally prog rock. No one is impressed by their jazz stylings, they're supposed to have them

good post

Does this mean Bjork is prog?

it's a pop song though

>jazz stylings
come back when you know what you're talking about; could have at least said Stravinsky or Bartok or some shit

>could have at least said Stravinsky or Bartok or some shit
literally fuck off dude, you come back when you know where prog rock came from

Can't wait for the King Crimson collab

OP is a retard trying to create another spam there.
People are already suckered in.

>Fripp and Keith Emerson, the two founding fathers of prog, idolized Bartok
mhhmmmmmmm

Time signature is literally irrelevant

literally Genesis
not at all impressed

yeah I'm sure they loved Bach too, and the fucking Beatles. Who gives a toss

the trips confirm and outdigit the dubs.

t. brainlet

I'll concede that, some of Ladies of the Road sound like they were ripped straight from a mid-60s Beatles song

right

Why do people feel obliged to like a song more when they find out that it's in a weird time signature?

Probably makes them feel smart

venetian snares would like a word with u

its more progressive

you always (always) notice it when you hear it the first time