Best Ever Albums

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:09:37 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/27/2012 23:09

1
9
8
4
WINS!

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Facetious — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 02:31:10 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 10/26/2012 06:31

lethalnezzle wrote:

1984. Let It Be is a brilliant replacement (no pun intended).

But when I included it in the team, the pun was intentional 😉

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Facetious — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:15:22 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 10/26/2012 03:15

Magenta wrote:

*sigh*

IT WAS A JOKE

You know

Ha Ha?

:roll:

So was my reply 😉

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:11:04 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/26/2012 03:11

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman wrote:

I was considering it for the replacement for Tabula rasa, but I thought Let it Be would be a funnier choice. I'm not really sure when to use it. We'll see.....

*sigh*

IT WAS A JOKE

You know

Ha Ha?

🙄

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Mr. Shankly — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:55:16 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 10/26/2012 02:55

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman wrote:

I was considering it for the replacement for Tabula rasa, but I thought Let it Be would be a funnier choice. I'm not really sure when to use it. We'll see.....

If you'd put Wham in, I would have voted for '68. It's funny. I don't actually have an emotional attachment to much of the music that was ubiquitous during my formative years. In fact, the emotions I have about mainstream 80's are mostly negative.

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Facetious — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:54:12 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 10/26/2012 02:54

Mr. Shankly wrote:

It's a better choice, actually.

I know 😨

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Mr. Shankly — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:53:13 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 10/26/2012 02:53

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman wrote:

I was considering it for the replacement for Tabula rasa, but I thought Let it Be would be a funnier choice. I'm not really sure when to use it. We'll see.....

It's a better choice, actually.

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Facetious — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:49:18 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 10/26/2012 02:49

Magenta wrote:

I am disappointed that 'Make It Big' hasn't made an appearance though, Eggman, maybe next time! :wink:

I was considering it for the replacement for Tabula rasa, but I thought Let it Be would be a funnier choice. I'm not really sure when to use it. We'll see.....

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Mr. Shankly — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:00:07 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 10/26/2012 02:00

I can't believe I just voted against The Beatles! 😲

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:35:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/25/2012 21:35

🤣 As I said, when I'm called out on something it's more often than not for a good reason. So you don't need to apologise.

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Robert Anton Wilson — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:12:06 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 10/25/2012 21:12

Jhereko wrote:

I took the time to write out the rules and wracked my brain trying to think of all possible occurrences and conflicts. I wrote the rules to try and make the tournament as enjoyable and understandable as possible.

And I thank you for it all. It had to be done and with trouble makers like me <= X lurking around it was inevitable that I would have found a comma missing somewhere no matter what. When I reread my own post <= X my first reaction was to want to write a nasty e-mail to myself defending you and all your efforts at writing such extended rules but I figured you would be more mature 😭 than I and actually come with a totally appropriate response => and you did.

I guess it is true that 80% of communication is actually non verbal and that 100% of that 80% is lost when typing on the internet. X

Man I sure hope I do not go against OK Computer for my next match-up though.

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:51:05 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/25/2012 20:51

Despite Jherry's attempts at flattery... it's 1984 for me... Smiths will beat Pink Floyd EVERY TIME for me 😁

I am disappointed that 'Make It Big' hasn't made an appearance though, Eggman, maybe next time! 😉

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:06:49 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/25/2012 20:06

Hi,

I appreciate your response. However the rules were up for more than long enough for people to question them and ask me why something was a certain way and why something else wasn't etc. before the tournament started and even during the beginning. I apologise for the push/pull rule being removed, I had some people telling me it was a cool rule and some people telling me it was complicated and based on the first few matches I made the call to not have it in the game. Unfortunately I made the mistake of not broadcasting that decision when I thought that I had, again for that I apologise.

I took the time to write out the rules and wracked my brain trying to think of all possible occurrences and conflicts. I wrote the rules to try and make the tournament as enjoyable and understandable as possible. I wrote the majority of it in advance of the start of the tournament so that people would have time to question my decisions and to come up with more suggestions of things I hadn't yet thought of, and yet most of those questions have of course come out as the rules are enacted at the relevant time during the tournament. I should have not worded that eligibility rule as 'generally' I should have just said it as an absolute (on a side note: Tabula Rasa also breaks the eligibility rule of being a compilation). Again, yes, there are some things I've done in the running of this tourny I could have done better -but I've been held accountable every time and I hope through that as well as through my own efforts that ultimately the end product is better.

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Robert Anton Wilson — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:56:17 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 10/25/2012 19:56

Dang, my comment reads much harsher than I meant it to ... should I edit my post or just sit back and see how it plays. I'll ask my Procrastinators Anonymous support group what they think.

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Robert Anton Wilson — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:49:50 GMT

Author: Robert Anton Wilson

Posted: 10/25/2012 19:49

[quote]Just realised this:

hereko wrote:

Quote:

3. Eligibility
F. Generally no modern classical as it is too difficult to compare with popular music.

Well actually since the rule uses the word "Generally" it clearly means that refusing an album based on that rule is a totally inappropriate call since it is clear that 1 out 6 selections cannot be by any standard considered as "generally".

Following the totally unannounced cancellation of the push/pull rule and the now creative application of this rule I wonder why we bothered even having rules to start with. The point of having rules is to be able to keep those who do not abide by them in line not to punish those who do not break them or who apply them properly. I know I can sometimes be a stickler for the rule but I always find it funny when I see interpretation of rules trumping what is clearly written black on white. I invested some of my precious time in reading and understanding them and as it turns out this was not a wise investment of my time.

This being said, the tournament is going great so far -even though I am saddened to suffer losses after losses but hey! - that is the way it goes. This tournament is lots of fun and hats off on the organisation because it is quite big and running rather smoothly.

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:10:31 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/25/2012 14:10

84 was amazing before, but you didn't have to overkill with adding Let it Be by the Replacements. 84 hands down.

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Mr. Shankly — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:25:10 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 10/25/2012 13:25

joyofdivision wrote:

Phew, I'm glad it only applies to classical music :wink:

We used John Coltrane before and it was cool, remember?

I could go either way with this one, but with the addition of The Replacements, I'm leaning toward 1984.

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:14:55 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/25/2012 13:14

1984. Let It Be is a brilliant replacement (no pun intended).

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:27:24 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/25/2012 12:27

Phew, I'm glad it only applies to classical music 😉

Re: [CLOSED] BYT - GROUP F|FIGHT 5: 1984 DEFEATS 1968 (19-11)

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:23:25 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 10/25/2012 12:23

joyofdivision wrote:

Oh shit, does this rule also apply to jazz? Was thinking of including some in one of my lineups :?

Clearly not as 1959 has been competing.