Music Banter - View Single Post - The Definitve List: Most Overrated Bands\Artists ever

whogivesaflux · 08-01-2008, 08:30 AM

Too methodically obvious to respond to ?

All I did was ask you to clarify your definition of what you are talking about.

I didn't refute anything , i didn't misrepresent anything , i didn't manipulate anything and i'm not trying to sell anything.

All I did was ask you to go into a bit more detail about your opinion so I could see where you were coming from.

And you have spent an entire paragraph trying to avoid doing so and insisted on calling me out in some silly faux one-upmanship which is actually what I was trying to avoid. I'm not trying to refute any of your claims because quite honestly I have no idea what any of them are yet.

Oh really...well let's go back and take a look at what we have both written so far.

I would love to debate your definition of art pop , but it's trying so hard to be clever it just ends up being totally meaningless.

I mean let's look at your definition

Quote:
art pop is a term I confabulated out of my proverbial cobwebs on the spot. It's a term that for me describes more so an effect the artist/band has socially that constitutes a resulting clique mentality.

What you are stating above is that you do FULLY understand what I wrote and that it's meaningless. The term meaningless translates literally to an expressed thought that bares out no substance. You then completely contradict your expressed certainty by asking "In what way?" Seems pretty "divisive" to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's you that should more so focus on the concept of brevity.

According to what your last reply expressed, the following response would have articulated your previous response much more efficiently: "I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are attempting to express here. Could you elaborate please?"

You then write:

In what way?

Any band could claim to have what could be considered 'a clique mentality' That's why you buy t shirts and sing along at gigs.

A band's image? it's message? it's politics? it's fashion? all of them? none of them?

You're being far to vague on this.

A follow up that directly contradicts the claim in your last response to me that you merely wished further explanation on the matter. The truth is, you COMPLETELY missed the point I was making. (or did you? seems pretty obvious to me) The point is that the bands themselves claim nothing that in reality determines their PERCEIVED musical identity. That is a complete misrepresentation of what I posted. Is a band categorized within any specific type of music whatsoever because they themselves claim they are? The answer is a resounding NO. That's up to the public. It called artistic interpretation made by the critical public. That's the ONLY thing that constitutes a band or artist's musical affinity, not their image or any of the other appearance oriented relativities the you forwarded in the form of:

"A band's image? it's message? it's politics? it's fashion? all of them? none of them?"

Those things are ALL subject to interpretation and therefore only when various common consensuses are tallied can critics make categoric judgments based on mass opinion. I'm sorry friend, but you dismissed your own understanding of what I wrote by hacking up the context of what I expressed, prematurely. You can't first write that what I wrote is definitively meaningless and then follow up with a direct reference to your own uncertainty. Incidentally, all sarcasm aside, what I wrote was in NO WAY "clever" it consists of an utmost in efficient and basic communications. It just must be read as one thought and not several different posts in one. Very simple actually.

You follow up with these considerations:

Quote:
It's a phenomenon that attaches and best lends itself to a commercial popularity drawn form a pseudo intellectual underground which is in reality neither.

You could have just written 'commercial' and saved yourself some time here , assuming that's what is you meant. If it isn't then perhaps you can clarify this as well.

Quote:
I believe in identifying responsibility rather than the premise. The measure of anything is best taken from result rather than appearance.

Pardon ?

Sorry but in this context this means absolutely nothing unless you are prepared to explain it.

You see, by over simplify and dissecting what I wrote, you most certainly HAVE misrepresented my thoughts. As stated by yourself above, "in this context" it does make little sense. That's because you created a false context by delineating what I succinctly expressed. I apologize for expressing that I believe "you knew what you were doing" but it just seems so basic, it seemed to me as though you must have. I could be wrong and for that and I do therefore apologize.

Try this: Go back and lump together the three separate quotes you did your best to understand in a separate fashion above. You will find the thoughts I express most certainly are exacting, objective and complete in meaning. Although there is some admitted cynical spice contained in the reference to those supporting Radiohead's popularity, you will find a very specific means to an ends. A very real rationale.

You end with the following defensive congenial clique derived summation that could have been simply put as: "That's your musical opinion and whereas I can respect that, I don't hold the same opinions you do and doubt I ever will" That at least would have been true, to the point, and respectful of what I intelligently forwarded on the matter. It also does you no justice to offer defense of emotional impulsiveness as forwarded by your peers on this message board community. Dig?

Quote:
Bottom Line: ANY music that has a reputation that is popular enough to proceed it demands the sincerest of scrutiny from me as a listener and long time musical appreciator.

I think that most people here would consider themselves something of that sort. I don't really see why it needs spelling out though, and it doesn't really tell us anything about what you are trying to define.

Quote:
Might try actually defending your position there boo boo.

Until you define what you are talking about with something more concrete I don't really see what Boo Boo has to defend.

All music and it's interpretations are most assuredly subjective. When I am attacked in response for expressing my opinions, expect retaliation. I simply appreciated the element and tone of your initial response in general. At least it was intelligently succinct and lacked the base line emotional impulsiveness that I encountered in the form of Lucy Sam & Boo Boo 's response to my critique of Radiohead. Which I fully contended to be OVER RATED. After listening to the Kid A CD that remains my opinion.

08-01-2008, 08:30 AM	#206 (permalink)
whogivesaflux Groupie Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 47	Too methodically obvious to respond to ? All I did was ask you to clarify your definition of what you are talking about. I didn't refute anything , i didn't misrepresent anything , i didn't manipulate anything and i'm not trying to sell anything. All I did was ask you to go into a bit more detail about your opinion so I could see where you were coming from. And you have spent an entire paragraph trying to avoid doing so and insisted on calling me out in some silly faux one-upmanship which is actually what I was trying to avoid. I'm not trying to refute any of your claims because quite honestly I have no idea what any of them are yet. Oh really...well let's go back and take a look at what we have both written so far. I would love to debate your definition of art pop , but it's trying so hard to be clever it just ends up being totally meaningless. I mean let's look at your definition Quote: art pop is a term I confabulated out of my proverbial cobwebs on the spot. It's a term that for me describes more so an effect the artist/band has socially that constitutes a resulting clique mentality. What you are stating above is that you do FULLY understand what I wrote and that it's meaningless. The term meaningless translates literally to an expressed thought that bares out no substance. You then completely contradict your expressed certainty by asking "In what way?" Seems pretty "divisive" to me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's you that should more so focus on the concept of brevity. According to what your last reply expressed, the following response would have articulated your previous response much more efficiently: "I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are attempting to express here. Could you elaborate please?" You then write: In what way? Any band could claim to have what could be considered 'a clique mentality' That's why you buy t shirts and sing along at gigs. A band's image? it's message? it's politics? it's fashion? all of them? none of them? You're being far to vague on this. A follow up that directly contradicts the claim in your last response to me that you merely wished further explanation on the matter. The truth is, you COMPLETELY missed the point I was making. (or did you? seems pretty obvious to me) The point is that the bands themselves claim nothing that in reality determines their PERCEIVED musical identity. That is a complete misrepresentation of what I posted. Is a band categorized within any specific type of music whatsoever because they themselves claim they are? The answer is a resounding NO. That's up to the public. It called artistic interpretation made by the critical public. That's the ONLY thing that constitutes a band or artist's musical affinity, not their image or any of the other appearance oriented relativities the you forwarded in the form of: "A band's image? it's message? it's politics? it's fashion? all of them? none of them?" Those things are ALL subject to interpretation and therefore only when various common consensuses are tallied can critics make categoric judgments based on mass opinion. I'm sorry friend, but you dismissed your own understanding of what I wrote by hacking up the context of what I expressed, prematurely. You can't first write that what I wrote is definitively meaningless and then follow up with a direct reference to your own uncertainty. Incidentally, all sarcasm aside, what I wrote was in NO WAY "clever" it consists of an utmost in efficient and basic communications. It just must be read as one thought and not several different posts in one. Very simple actually. You follow up with these considerations: Quote: It's a phenomenon that attaches and best lends itself to a commercial popularity drawn form a pseudo intellectual underground which is in reality neither. You could have just written 'commercial' and saved yourself some time here , assuming that's what is you meant. If it isn't then perhaps you can clarify this as well. Quote: I believe in identifying responsibility rather than the premise. The measure of anything is best taken from result rather than appearance. Pardon ? Sorry but in this context this means absolutely nothing unless you are prepared to explain it. You see, by over simplify and dissecting what I wrote, you most certainly HAVE misrepresented my thoughts. As stated by yourself above, "in this context" it does make little sense. That's because you created a false context by delineating what I succinctly expressed. I apologize for expressing that I believe "you knew what you were doing" but it just seems so basic, it seemed to me as though you must have. I could be wrong and for that and I do therefore apologize. Try this: Go back and lump together the three separate quotes you did your best to understand in a separate fashion above. You will find the thoughts I express most certainly are exacting, objective and complete in meaning. Although there is some admitted cynical spice contained in the reference to those supporting Radiohead's popularity, you will find a very specific means to an ends. A very real rationale. You end with the following defensive congenial clique derived summation that could have been simply put as: "That's your musical opinion and whereas I can respect that, I don't hold the same opinions you do and doubt I ever will" That at least would have been true, to the point, and respectful of what I intelligently forwarded on the matter. It also does you no justice to offer defense of emotional impulsiveness as forwarded by your peers on this message board community. Dig? Quote: Bottom Line: ANY music that has a reputation that is popular enough to proceed it demands the sincerest of scrutiny from me as a listener and long time musical appreciator. I think that most people here would consider themselves something of that sort. I don't really see why it needs spelling out though, and it doesn't really tell us anything about what you are trying to define. Quote: Might try actually defending your position there boo boo. Until you define what you are talking about with something more concrete I don't really see what Boo Boo has to defend. All music and it's interpretations are most assuredly subjective. When I am attacked in response for expressing my opinions, expect retaliation. I simply appreciated the element and tone of your initial response in general. At least it was intelligently succinct and lacked the base line emotional impulsiveness that I encountered in the form of Lucy Sam & Boo Boo 's response to my critique of Radiohead. Which I fully contended to be OVER RATED. After listening to the Kid A CD that remains my opinion.