Yes I did read what you said.
In fact here's exactly what you said word for word.
I have decided to make a point of changing the parts where you were criticising me rather than answering the question in red type.
Quote:
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?"
|
As you can see , you didn't actually answer my question. You just basically implied I was either taking you for a fool or I'm too stupid to understand what you meant. Neither actually answers the question put to you , which was a very simple one.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The whole point of me asking you to clarify this was so that I could get
YOUR interpretation of the meaning. Something you've again still not answered.
Quote:
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.
|
Finally some sort of answer , but still in general terms rather than your own opinion.
Quote:
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?
|
No actually , I don't dig. This didn't give me any insight to your thoughts at all. I asked you to explain it. Not reply with 'Oh this is so easy to understand you must be thick' or words to that effect.
You were the one that complained of lack of debate earlier in this thread. I can quite see why people would be reluctant to do so with you after all this.
And I have not insulted you yet ,all I ask is you cut down on the linguistic gymnastics and media speak and actually answer a straight question.