Quote:
Originally Posted by oojay
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.
|
Right, so you don't even know the definition of an analogy. It's a relationship between two pairs, and the most important part of a functional analogy is that you ascertain the relationship between the first entities of each pair, so you can connect the two together. White people and teenagers?
Quote:
|
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.
|
I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that some things will not be enjoyed by a majority.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Not everyone's as unique as you think they are, firstly. And secondly, dude, you still don't even know what a f
ucking generalization IS.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It's common sense, dude, because of what I said in my previous comment which was in bold letters that you ignored completely. Because he doesn't follow typical guidelines for writing songs that will appeal to the masses.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Meh, fair enough, burden of proof lies with me. But as far as I'm concerned, logic points me in the direction that he wouldn't appeal to most people. And I'm not demeaning anyone for that, I'm not saying Aesop Rock IS THE BEST ARTIST EVER AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE HIM YOU SUCK AT EVERYTHING. If anything, you're the one who's been mad at me for me supporting him so much. I'm not getting upset with anyone for not liking him.
Quote:
|
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).
|
You didn't, I was saying it's a fact that most people use radios or mainstream media as their source of entertainment. And I was using that fact to lead into supporting commentary, which, as I pointed out before, you ignored, and that is that music on the radio (which is, as we've established, a primary source for music) is formulaic
for a reason. Because those cheap formulas
work. Simpler songwriting is going to appeal to more people. The music business understands that, hence watered-down commercialized versions of virtually every genre you come across. A large portion of radio listeners would be teenagers, and if Aesop Rock were trying to appeal to them, he probably would take a more simple, formulaic approach.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Dude, I haven't even really made a lot of statements. I just have to keep repeating yourself because you're not getting my point. You think I'm just calling all teenagers too stupid to listen to Aesop Rock, and I have to keep explaining to you that a generalization doesn't mean EVERYBODY. It means the biggest group. So yeah, I have to keep being repetitive because you're not listening to me.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Yes, you should judge things that come to you as individuals. I don't let the general sentiment of people get in my way. I don't talk to someone who's 16 and assume things like, "oh man, this person belongs to the 'teenage' group. This person's not gonna know anything!" I'm the farthest from that. I don't give a **** who or what you are as long as you can make sense out of what you're saying.
Quote:
|
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."
|
Really? Go get a quote where I said that at all, because that's bullsh
it.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well that's a lofty inference, because I can tell you that I know that using a big word doesn't make you smarter than the next guy. But if you have a really vast vocabulary, it can work wonders, because you'll be able to express yourself in a multitude of ways.
Quote:
|
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.
|
...Wow. I know they aren't all the same. Haven't you even been listening to me?
Yeah, man. I obviously can't comprehend things at an average 15 year old's intellectual level. (It's funny how many ad hominems you load into your posts... Not that I haven't exchanged any, but Jesus, that's all you're aiming for!)
Quote:
|
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.
|
No I'm not, I'm applauding someone for trying to put information into their heads. And you really believe that Aesop Rock is just reading dictionaries and stringing together words randomly? He's not, so I don't even get the point of this argument.
And it wouldn't just be about referencing the wikipedia link, it would be about digesting the information
in the link (that would be like digesting the definition of the word), and therefore knowing more, and being able to use that information correctly (as in, not just referencing, but understanding the facts and being able to cite them on your own and analyze the information in useful ways--this would be like being able to use a word correctly.)
It's not about just having the tools, it's about what you do with them.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well I don't believe in karma. Bad things happen to good people everyday, and bad people get away everyday.
Dude, LOL, how are you assuming that I'm an attention whore and all that? Because I disagreed with someone, and then you disagreed with me, and now I'm defending my views? How whorish!
Quote:
|
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?
|
Again, you're just like, not listening. It's not for
no reason. I'm demeaning
laziness. Laziness towards learning is a vice. If you don't think it is, then you're one of the problems that humanity faces when it comes to progressing. I'm saying it's a bad thing to not try and seek information and know things, and you're somehow misconstruing that into another insult about me and claiming that it means that I need attention. I'm really getting the sense that you're disagreeing with
everything I say just to disagree. Really... Tell me how people who take pride in their ignorance and refuse to correct it are good things.
Quote:
|
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).
|
See, this is where we disagree: you think that the artist's definition of their art is the last straw, and that any other interpretations mean nothing. I don't believe that is the case. Have you ever read or seen Waiting for Godot? Samuel Beckett said that it was about nothing, but it's spawned all sorts of ideas and criticisms and healthy brain activity. Even I can take more than nothing away from Waiting for Godot! (To me, it shows humanity chasing its own tail.)
Quote:
|
Tell that to Van Gogh, Picasso, Dali, Da Vinci (need I continue?).
|
Okay, sure, there's abstract visual artists. But you were giving me talk of a picture of a goddamn race car, which is far from abstract, and plus, you said that if you drew a race car, you could say it's a race car and no matter what you say, it's gonna be a race car. Well, that might be true. But the actual drawing is more like the lyrics of a song. You can't tell me certain lyrics
were not in a song, but we can debate all day the reason
why those lyrics are there.
But okay, you win that one, man--there's abstract, open-ended visual art. But I don't give a sh
it about visual art at the moment and it has nothing to do with what we're talking about and I haven't really developed any strong opinions in visual art, so I wouldn't be able to really contribute much.
Quote:
|
It obviously didn't go over my head, as I clearly referenced it and evoked a mundane response from you.
|
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. WHAT? Next time someone says a joke, and I don't get it, and they say it went over my head, that's what I'm gonna say.
"Hey man, I said something about it and you gave me a dull response. Obviously, I understood your joke."
Quote:
|
So much for continuity and credibility in your arguments.
|
How was I inconsistent?
First quote I say he wouldn't
just fall under that umbrella, implying that he would, but it wouldn't be his only or primary one. I guess you missed the key word, huh? It happens.
Second quote I said he's kind of conscious rap, and in the third I basically repeat the same thing.
Tell me where the contradiction lies.
Quote:
|
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?
|
I'd prefer 20.