Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > General Music
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-31-2008, 10:38 AM   #201 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
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...
OK, I went back and carefully read what you posted in response to my thread and your intent in response is just too methodically obvious to respond to. All you did UHM is subdivide my post to eliminate it's contextual meaning. I don't know why you took the time just to do that, but you did nonetheless. Please forgive me for pointing out the fact that although you put a little thought into your response, it was a basic story book case of "pseudo intellectualism". You claim that for instance that the posted thought containing the word commercial could have been just shorted to just commercial. That's nonsense friend and completely removes the value and justification of the word in the thought's context. Sure it would make sense if I was attempting to put forth a false position, but I am not and know it. Your responsibility in response to any given thought is not to conform said thought to your preferred perception, but rather to respond to my perception. Otherwise your response is just a "sell". A manipulation of my thoughts to best serve a quick anecdotal "that don't make any sense" strategy. You neither refuted anything factually contained within the post nor did you approved it. By intentionally misrepresenting it, you avoided it. Very basic in reality. Did you also actually not understand what I was expressing about appearances and results? Think on this: Why do they call pop music, Pop Music? I will give you a hint. It's not because the artist is handing out free soft drinks at their concerts. I simply made the point that when assessing and calculating a group or artist's stylized musical output, more can be accurately drawn from the social results of it's fans justification and defense of the music than the group's musical appearance. Is that not true?

Now, for my assessment of Kid A. What a load of unoriginal and limp crap. Anyone that makes the claim that this CD is "original" needs to get out more. In fact, Curve's Doppelganger from 1992 is exactly like Kid A is only 10 times better. This CD contains all the stones of a wad of wet toilet paper, and as far as I'm concerned, is no more effective at "doing it's job". That job of said music being to inspire and engagingly enthuse the listener. Now this is not to say that this has always been the case with Radiohead. All though the song was given the flag of corporate radio attention, the song Creep was excellent. Too bad they (corp.) butchered it's impact by over playing it to death. I can sure tell you this. There was a heck of lot better material than Radiohead's Creep not getting a single bit of Radio play in 1992. That's a fact. Anyhow, Kid A sees Radiohead taking on the electronic sequenced flavor of the day and that's about it. The first person that states this is progressive because it contains "electronic" contrivances similar in any way to true electronic exploration or pioneering gets the booby prize for certain. This is about as original with respect to style and production as was any number of pop bands from the period. You can certainly make the case in point that a project/artist like Squarepusher is progressive and "arty", but Radiohead...come on!
whogivesaflux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 07:10 PM   #202 (permalink)
Unrepentant Ass-Mod
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,920
Default

I think this conversation has lost all meaning or appreciable value. Jay, would you mind putting the next artist up so we don't have to endure this kid's nonsensical ramblings for the next year?
__________________
first.am
lucifer_sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 08:06 PM   #203 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whogivesaflux View Post
Could be because you can't seem to ever admit that you're wrong, but I dunno.
You're the one being a huge douche just because I think Radiohead are progressive.
boo boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 08:12 PM   #204 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whogivesaflux View Post
OK, I went back and carefully read what you posted in response to my thread and your intent in response is just too methodically obvious to respond to. All you did UHM is subdivide my post to eliminate it's contextual meaning. I don't know why you took the time just to do that, but you did nonetheless. Please forgive me for pointing out the fact that although you put a little thought into your response, it was a basic story book case of "pseudo intellectualism". You claim that for instance that the posted thought containing the word commercial could have been just shorted to just commercial. That's nonsense friend and completely removes the value and justification of the word in the thought's context. Sure it would make sense if I was attempting to put forth a false position, but I am not and know it. Your responsibility in response to any given thought is not to conform said thought to your preferred perception, but rather to respond to my perception. Otherwise your response is just a "sell". A manipulation of my thoughts to best serve a quick anecdotal "that don't make any sense" strategy. You neither refuted anything factually contained within the post nor did you approved it. By intentionally misrepresenting it, you avoided it. Very basic in reality. Did you also actually not understand what I was expressing about appearances and results? Think on this: Why do they call pop music, Pop Music? I will give you a hint. It's not because the artist is handing out free soft drinks at their concerts. I simply made the point that when assessing and calculating a group or artist's stylized musical output, more can be accurately drawn from the social results of it's fans justification and defense of the music than the group's musical appearance. Is that not true?
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.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2008, 08:37 PM   #205 (permalink)
____
 
FaSho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 5,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucifer_sam View Post
I think this conversation has lost all meaning or appreciable value. Jay, would you mind putting the next artist up so we don't have to endure this kid's nonsensical ramblings for the next year?
i second that
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
What? No. No. No. No no no.
FaSho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 09:30 AM   #206 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 47
Default

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.
whogivesaflux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 10:01 AM   #207 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,447
Default

The only reason I broke things up was to point you in the direction of what I wanted you to clarify more clearly. When I was referring to the context I DID mean the whole thing , not just that one sentence.

Any contradictions that I may have made are due to a lack of understanding of your original post. I'm not trying to argue with you.

You seem to take great delight in trying to second guess my motives when all my original post to you was asking you to expand and to explain your reasoning. I wasn't trying to catch you out I was just trying to see if I was heading in the right direction.

To be honest you seem more hell bent on critiquing my own posts rather than answer any questions I put to you. I'm beginning to wonder if it's really worth asking you anything anymore.

I have to say that the more this goes on the more I start thinking that wolverinewolfweiselpigeon had a point when she said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverinewolfweiselpigeon View Post
Ugh. Stop talking and say something.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 10:36 AM   #208 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 47
Default

Dude/Dudette, whomever, try asking a straight question and you'll get a straight answer. STOP playing games. It's you that has tried to turn my thoughts into some mysterious mumbo jumbo that I need to prove in legal long form. Now ask your SPECIFIC question or STFU in response to me. k?
whogivesaflux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 10:49 AM   #209 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,447
Default

I would seriously appreciate not being told to shut the fuck up for the heinous crime of trying to take an interest and understand your point of view.

I guess my initial knee jerk reaction of your words being hollow self indulgent tosh wasn't as far off the mark as I thought , but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

If saying to you 'can you explain what you mean by this' is turning something into mysterious mumbo jumbo then I guess there's nothing more that can be said here.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2008, 11:01 AM   #210 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 47
Default

Please ask a question instead of asking me to repeat myself. What is your question/s?
whogivesaflux is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.