New Ozma Songs on Myspace

[CantelopeSkiz]

The new one is pretty darn good.

[I like ozma]

the new songs rock beautifully, but they dont ozma beautifully. but if this is what they are trying to achieve then they are doing it well

[Not Jason]

the new songs rock beautifully, but they dont ozma beautifully. but if this is what they are trying to achieve then they are doing it well

ozma's a verb?

[Kyosho]

"I Wonder" is fricken awesome. 

[brad]

I like almost everything I've heard so far better than most of the stuff from spending time.  I might stand pretty much alone here, but I think they're going in the right direction.  I'm not sure if they've really achieved what they are ultimately working towards just yet, but I see these as steps in the right direction, personally.

i'm with you.

[The Other Mike]

the new acoustic one is alright, but all the melodies in these songs seem kind of droney.

[CantelopeSkiz]

At least that one has harmonies.

[brad]

At least that one has harmonies.

if you want harmonies, listen to my avatar.   tally hall, seriously.   myspace.com/tallyhallcom

[ActionExplosion]

Wow there pretty awesome :O

[Rome]

WHOA!

*thumbs down*

[tis not mike other]

I like almost everything I've heard so far better than most of the stuff from spending time.  I might stand pretty much alone here, but I think they're going in the right direction.  I'm not sure if they've really achieved what they are ultimately working towards just yet, but I see these as steps in the right direction, personally.

You're not alone Jason.I would not say better than spending time, but I agree with you Jason. This time I agree with you. I take back my other post. I almost let the other peoples opinion convince me, but the more I listen to these songs the more I like them. They may not be old ozma, but they have already done that. I mean I like ozma a lot, I want them to make something as great as their old stuff just in a different way. If people want them to play stuff just like ozma did before they should listen to thier old stuff. Ozma can still be great in other ways. Thier newest song(I wonder)  totally convinced me of that. I hope they will do so. Time will tell. 

[I like ozma]

i would like to use a qoute from someone who is not respected on this board and that is the other mike, he once said....."anyways, if you want to keep arguing about how the mae shi sucks, go for it.  Just know that you are wrong."
-The Other Mike

well in context with the ozma discussion, you guys can keep arguing that ozma is going in the right direction or whatever you say positive about this music. but know that you are wrong. THIS ISNT OZMA'S MUSIC this is daniel brummel and ryen slegr's new lame way of trying to sound mature.

[NewYorkerNick]

"I wonder" is frikin beautiful... though I'm kind of ticked because I wrote a similar song months ago when I was spliting up with my girlfriend. Same chords, different lyrics obviously, just a bit different on the pattern.

[butterfly]

i would like to use a qoute from someone who is not respected on this board and that is the other mike, he once said....."anyways, if you want to keep arguing about how the mae shi sucks, go for it.  Just know that you are wrong."
-The Other Mike

well in context with the ozma discussion, you guys can keep arguing that ozma is going in the right direction or whatever you say positive about this music. but know that you are wrong. THIS ISNT OZMA'S MUSIC this is daniel brummel and ryen slegr's new lame way of trying to sound mature.

you're totally right my friend. the new songs sucks that it didn't even bother me that much the i didn't get to download the new demos. i mean...lets face it, even the old denise demo is far better. guess its time to go search for a better band that could rock me ears

[jvstin]

i would like to use a qoute from someone who is not respected on this board and that is the other mike, he once said....."anyways, if you want to keep arguing about how the mae shi sucks, go for it.  Just know that you are wrong."
-The Other Mike

well in context with the ozma discussion, you guys can keep arguing that ozma is going in the right direction or whatever you say positive about this music. but know that you are wrong. THIS ISNT OZMA'S MUSIC this is daniel brummel and ryen slegr's new lame way of trying to sound mature.

noob, die.

[hipsun]

i would like to use a qoute from someone who is not respected on this board and that is the other mike, he once said....."anyways, if you want to keep arguing about how the mae shi sucks, go for it.  Just know that you are wrong."
-The Other Mike

well in context with the ozma discussion, you guys can keep arguing that ozma is going in the right direction or whatever you say positive about this music. but know that you are wrong. THIS ISNT OZMA'S MUSIC this is daniel brummel and ryen slegr's new lame way of trying to sound mature.

what makes you think they are trying to sound mature? i think it's more likely they're simply trying to make music that's of interest to them now. they are accomplished musicians who have a much broader range of influences than they had when they were 18. they are never going to make another RRP3. if you can't handle that, i would suggest you leave. enjoy your fantasy of what you think ozma used to be and forget they ever got back together. spare us (or at least me) your insipid non-critiques.

[CantelopeSkiz]

i would like to use a qoute from someone who is not respected on this board and that is the other mike, he once said....."anyways, if you want to keep arguing about how the mae shi sucks, go for it.  Just know that you are wrong."
-The Other Mike

well in context with the ozma discussion, you guys can keep arguing that ozma is going in the right direction or whatever you say positive about this music. but know that you are wrong. THIS ISNT OZMA'S MUSIC this is daniel brummel and ryen slegr's new lame way of trying to sound mature.

The Other Mike isn't respected?

[WhoYouCallinWeez]

seriously. why be on the board for the band to only support the old material? i mean obviously this IS still ozma, you just dont like them anymore b/c they sound different for better or worse.

[Seb]

i would like to use a qoute from someone who is not respected on this board and that is the other mike, he once said....."anyways, if you want to keep arguing about how the mae shi sucks, go for it.  Just know that you are wrong."
-The Other Mike

well in context with the ozma discussion, you guys can keep arguing that ozma is going in the right direction or whatever you say positive about this music. but know that you are wrong. THIS ISNT OZMA'S MUSIC this is daniel brummel and ryen slegr's new lame way of trying to sound mature.

Gee, thanks for denying me my right to an opinion, there. Very big of you.

Anyway, no disrespect intended to Ryen, but - assuming from the vocals that "I Wonder" and "Straight Flush" are indeed Daniel songs - the new songs really demonstrate (for me, at least) who the better songwriter is. The Ryen songs are alright, not in any way awful but nothing special either; but I think that those two I just mentioned are both pretty damned good. Weirdly, I think "Straight Flush" is quite reminiscent of post-Green Weezer - but by that I mean the few good parts of that output rather than all the crap parts.

[Not Jason]

Honestly, if Rock and Roll Part Three came out tomorrow and I'd never heard any of the songs before, I doubt I'd buy it.  Maybe I would, but I have a hard time seeing it have the same sort of impact on me now as it did back then.  I'm not just talking lyrically either.  I think musicially they've moved far enough forward now that doing the four on the floor pop stuff cannot possibly be satisfying for them, nor would I be too excited to hear it.

Having said that, when I listen to these songs, I don't hear the complete departure some of you people do.  I wonder if that is in part because a lot of people have been sitting on an old catelog of music so long that they've forgotten things like how drastic a change spending time felt like from their previous efforts.  Possibly some of the people in this argument got into Ozma with that record, and if so, it offsets your perception of the band a little bit.  To me, these sound no less Ozma than tracks like "Utsiasga;ldgh Shibuya", "Your Name" and "Wake Up" did on the first few listens.  If your willing to accept those things as legit Ozma, than why not the new stuff, which seems to have it's feet planted firmly in the traditions of Ozma's sound.  It's still very much rock based, it's still very much keyboard driven ("Darkness Into Light" even has some of that signiture doubled guitar/keys action that so defines Ozma's early work).  I think the only reason that people don't want to label this "Ozma" is because it was made 3 years too late for them to have lumped it with the rest of the catelog.

Perhaps there are valid reasons for not liking these songs, but how many of those same reasons might also be applicable to the classic Ozma catelog?  I think a lot of people have been glorifying the old body of work in excess here, and contrasting the new stuff against standards based on an over-romanticized memory of the past material.

edit:  Post 3000

[CantelopeSkiz]

I think that many of you peeps are failing to remember that these songs are just drafts of a final product, there is much more to be made of these songs, but nevertheless, these are pretty good. Yes Dear clearly has had a huge influence on Ryen and Dan has been heavily influenced by his other works as well. I'd really like to hear a song co-written by the two, and having Jose help would be better as well.

[The Other Mike]

I think it's lame to criticize a band for changing.  I think it's lame for I Like Ozma to quote me when doing so.  Yeah, I don't really like the way these songs sound so far, but maybe it's just that I'm not into this kind stuff anymore.  I do think the melodies are weak when comapred to some of their other stuff, though.

[tom]

The Oslo Accords, officially called the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements or Declaration of Principles (DOP), were finalized in Oslo, Norway on August 20, 1993, and subsequently officially signed at a public ceremony in Washington D.C. on September 13, 1993, with Mahmoud Abbas signing for the Palestine Liberation Organization and Shimon Peres signing for the State of Israel.

[I like ozma]

Honestly, if Rock and Roll Part Three came out tomorrow and I'd never heard any of the songs before, I doubt I'd buy it.  Maybe I would, but I have a hard time seeing it have the same sort of impact on me now as it did back then.  I'm not just talking lyrically either.  I think musicially they've moved far enough forward now that doing the four on the floor pop stuff cannot possibly be satisfying for them, nor would I be too excited to hear it.

Having said that, when I listen to these songs, I don't hear the complete departure some of you people do.  I wonder if that is in part because a lot of people have been sitting on an old catelog of music so long that they've forgotten things like how drastic a change spending time felt like from their previous efforts.  Possibly some of the people in this argument got into Ozma with that record, and if so, it offsets your perception of the band a little bit.  To me, these sound no less Ozma than tracks like "Utsiasga;ldgh Shibuya", "Your Name" and "Wake Up" did on the first few listens.  If your willing to accept those things as legit Ozma, than why not the new stuff, which seems to have it's feet planted firmly in the traditions of Ozma's sound.  It's still very much rock based, it's still very much keyboard driven ("Darkness Into Light" even has some of that signiture doubled guitar/keys action that so defines Ozma's early work).  I think the only reason that people don't want to label this "Ozma" is because it was made 3 years too late for them to have lumped it with the rest of the catelog.

Perhaps there are valid reasons for not liking these songs, but how many of those same reasons might also be applicable to the classic Ozma catelog?  I think a lot of people have been glorifying the old body of work in excess here, and contrasting the new stuff against standards based on an over-romanticized memory of the past material.

edit:  Post 3000

first off i would like to say: its "catalog"

second: you are on to something here i think, i agree with most of your points that it still has some of ozmas sound. i think these songs just kinda hit a lot of people by surprise because they were expecting a song like "rocks" and i know they are a different band now then they were, but people have a tendency to stick with what made them first fall in love with something, rather than accept the changes.


third: congratulations on your 3000th post


and fourth: if -150 karma is respected, then im the second most respected person on this board

[FireAarro]

Honestly, if Rock and Roll Part Three came out tomorrow and I'd never heard any of the songs before, I doubt I'd buy it.  Maybe I would, but I have a hard time seeing it have the same sort of impact on me now as it did back then.  I'm not just talking lyrically either.  I think musicially they've moved far enough forward now that doing the four on the floor pop stuff cannot possibly be satisfying for them, nor would I be too excited to hear it.

Having said that, when I listen to these songs, I don't hear the complete departure some of you people do.  I wonder if that is in part because a lot of people have been sitting on an old catelog of music so long that they've forgotten things like how drastic a change spending time felt like from their previous efforts.  Possibly some of the people in this argument got into Ozma with that record, and if so, it offsets your perception of the band a little bit.  To me, these sound no less Ozma than tracks like "Utsiasga;ldgh Shibuya", "Your Name" and "Wake Up" did on the first few listens.  If your willing to accept those things as legit Ozma, than why not the new stuff, which seems to have it's feet planted firmly in the traditions of Ozma's sound.  It's still very much rock based, it's still very much keyboard driven ("Darkness Into Light" even has some of that signiture doubled guitar/keys action that so defines Ozma's early work).  I think the only reason that people don't want to label this "Ozma" is because it was made 3 years too late for them to have lumped it with the rest of the catelog.

Perhaps there are valid reasons for not liking these songs, but how many of those same reasons might also be applicable to the classic Ozma catelog?  I think a lot of people have been glorifying the old body of work in excess here, and contrasting the new stuff against standards based on an over-romanticized memory of the past material.

edit:  Post 3000

first off i would like to say: its "catalog"

second: you are on to something here i think, i agree with most of your points that it still has some of ozmas sound. i think these songs just kinda hit a lot of people by surprise because they were expecting a song like "rocks" and i know they are a different band now then they were, but people have a tendency to stick with what made them first fall in love with something, rather than accept the changes.


third: congratulations on your 3000th post


and fourth: if -150 karma is respected, then im the second most respected person on this board

1. anal

2. Rocks, I don't know why anyone would expect a song like that, that's a sorta style they haven't written in often and it was way back on RRP3. It seems like some people are kinda considering their old catalogue as a whole and comparing "Old Ozma" as a single period to "New Ozma" (where RRP3 material is as relevant for comparison as STOTBL stuff), which isn't that surprising, considering a lot of us are new fans who weren't there before STOTBL was released, like me. If you look at Ozma's sound in terms of change over time instead of lumpy groups it's a pretty smooth curve.

4. hahahahahhaha

[The Other Mike]

lol@taking karma seriously.

[jvstin]

Honestly, if Rock and Roll Part Three came out tomorrow and I'd never heard any of the songs before, I doubt I'd buy it.  Maybe I would, but I have a hard time seeing it have the same sort of impact on me now as it did back then.  I'm not just talking lyrically either.  I think musicially they've moved far enough forward now that doing the four on the floor pop stuff cannot possibly be satisfying for them, nor would I be too excited to hear it.

Having said that, when I listen to these songs, I don't hear the complete departure some of you people do.  I wonder if that is in part because a lot of people have been sitting on an old catelog of music so long that they've forgotten things like how drastic a change spending time felt like from their previous efforts.  Possibly some of the people in this argument got into Ozma with that record, and if so, it offsets your perception of the band a little bit.  To me, these sound no less Ozma than tracks like "Utsiasga;ldgh Shibuya", "Your Name" and "Wake Up" did on the first few listens.  If your willing to accept those things as legit Ozma, than why not the new stuff, which seems to have it's feet planted firmly in the traditions of Ozma's sound.  It's still very much rock based, it's still very much keyboard driven ("Darkness Into Light" even has some of that signiture doubled guitar/keys action that so defines Ozma's early work).  I think the only reason that people don't want to label this "Ozma" is because it was made 3 years too late for them to have lumped it with the rest of the catelog.

Perhaps there are valid reasons for not liking these songs, but how many of those same reasons might also be applicable to the classic Ozma catelog?  I think a lot of people have been glorifying the old body of work in excess here, and contrasting the new stuff against standards based on an over-romanticized memory of the past material.

edit:  Post 3000

first off i would like to say: its "catalog"

second: you are on to something here i think, i agree with most of your points that it still has some of ozmas sound. i think these songs just kinda hit a lot of people by surprise because they were expecting a song like "rocks" and i know they are a different band now then they were, but people have a tendency to stick with what made them first fall in love with something, rather than accept the changes.


third: congratulations on your 3000th post


and fourth: if -150 karma is respected, then im the second most respected person on this board

the other mike has the balls to rather strongly voice his opinion without crying about the fact that some or many people disagree with him. pretty respect-worthy, i'd say.

and really, who fucking cares? complaining about/bringing up 'karma' just shows that you're a pussy who actually does care about what other people think about you

[Not Jason]

2. Rocks, I don't know why anyone would expect a song like that, that's a sorta style they haven't written in often and it was way back on RRP3. It seems like some people are kinda considering their old catalogue as a whole and comparing "Old Ozma" as a single period to "New Ozma" (where RRP3 material is as relevant for comparison as STOTBL stuff), which isn't that surprising, considering a lot of us are new fans who weren't there before STOTBL was released, like me. If you look at Ozma's sound in terms of change over time instead of lumpy groups it's a pretty smooth curve.

Thanks.  That's exactly what I was getting at, but you phrased it much more coherantly than myself.  I think that a lot of people that discovered the band post-STOTB don't have a proper understanding of how their sound progressed.  And in all fairness, it is kind of complicated in places.  For example, somebody might look at tracks like "Game Over" and "Eponine" from Ozma's most recent record and see that as indication that Ozma, at that point, was still writing in a RRP3 style, not realizing that both of those songs probably predated DDD.  Things like that need to be taken into account.  Songs like "Wake Up" or "Your Name" or "Come Home Andrea" were a radical departure when they first came out (and those are not the only examples from that album).  It seems to me that the new songs are less a departure from the STOTB era than STOTB was a departure from the previous era of Ozma.  In any case, I don't consider STOTB to fall within the same era as RRP3 and DDD (which I feel are more closely related, but still notably different).

And I hate to give it to him, but I Like Ozma's karma joke was really funny.  Though Mike does deserve massive respect.

[claydarcy]

lol@I Like Ozma correcting someone's orthography.

[I like ozma]

ok rocks was a dumb example but i was trying to think of a song with a quick strong melody