[MERIT]

It makes absolutely no difference what subjects or groups analogies are based upon if the end result is exactly the same. You're completely failing to realize that making generalities is wrong and ignorant, especially when dealing with music.

You are apparently unaware of the definition of, and differences between an opinion and a fact. I really don't know how to put all of this into terms that would be easier for you to understand. If you believe that all of your generalized opinions are facts then this conversation really has no place else to go, as I'm obviously arguing with a self-absorbed moron.

Again, neither you nor I said that he WOULD appeal to most teens. But appeal is completely relative to the listener, and each person's musical tastes are unique, and should not be lumped into an ignorant generalization made by some idiot on an internet forum.

Again, neither you nor I said that he would. But how did you come to this conclusion? What is it based upon? NOTHING. It is your opinion, which has been baseless thus far.

So I'm assuming that you have done so yourself? No, didn't think so. You fail to realize that the person making the generalized claims is the one who has the burden of proof to back them up, not the other way around.

Jesus Christ, what is with you and the "majority" and "minority" generalizations? People are going to listen to whatever appeals to them, regardless of how they became aware of the artists.

When did I say this? Oh, that's right, NEVER. I don't why you think that making up lame strawman arguments will further your point (or lack there of to be more precise).

Seriously, let's see you make one even remotely valid or pertinent statement without resorting to relegating people into some "majority" or "minority" that you made up in your head.

There you go, discuss things like a disgruntled 12 year old with Tourette Syndrome. Well played. Maybe you can call me a "poop head" and throw rocks at me next.

There's no need to disprove something that you haven't proved in the first place. You have no point to attack. What you may think is your "point" is just a generalized opinion. I'm trying to get you to judge each persons' tastes and each artist's work on an individual and unique basis. What rings true for one person does not automatically ring true for another simply because you THINK that it does. That is not the way the world works, not has it ever , nor will it ever. Get used to it.

See above.

Actually, that was the first time that you differentiated between "not likely" and "all teenegers are too f*cking stupid to understand what I like because MY taste is sooooooo beyond their intelectual capabilities."

It's called an inference, and it's based on YOUR statements. Excuse the rest of us lowly peasants for assuming that you mean what you say.

I completely disagree. Again, not all 15 year olds are the same. I'm quite sure that most 15 year olds on here have an extended vocabulary and could easily comprehend Aesop Rock's lyrics. It can only be inferred that these opinions of yours are based upon your own experiences of being unable to comprehend things at an average 15 year old's intellectual level. My apologies if you're not on par with the rest of us.

That is all well and good, but you are idolizing someone for their ability to reference a dictionary and a thesaurus. You can bookmark Wikipedia and reference it at every turn, but that doesn't make you an expert on every subject.

I honestly couldn't care less if you're afraid or riled up, but I do believe in karma. And per karma, you must have lived a pretty sh*tty, no good, f*cked up existance thus far in order for you to have evolved into the elitist, attention whore douche that you come across as in every post.

But why demean anyone for no reason? Are you that starved for attention that you feel the need to make up hypothetical groups in your head and then meaninglessly demean those groups in order to appease your own low sense of self?

The complexity of the work is not what is in question, rather the MEANING and MESSAGE of the work. Regardless of whether it is a visual or textual representation, it CAN have a finite and exact meaning behind it, which was determined by the artist. Of course viewers and listeners have the right to interpret it however they choose, but that does not necessarily make their interpretation correct (when it does not correspond with that of the artist).

Tell that to Van Gogh, Picasso, Dali, Da Vinci (need I continue?).

It obviously didn't go over my head, as I clearly referenced it and evoked a mundane response from you. But seeing as how you have disregarded your own ignorance in basically every aspect of the discussion thus far, I felt the need to bring it to your attention.

So much for continuity and credibility in your arguments.










So, would you like to go another 10 pages of clammering to back up your baseless opinions and attempting to pass them off as facts, while simultaneoiusly backtracking and trying to remove your foot from your mouth, or can you leave it be and save me some time and yourself some dignity?