Jake has no vocals on anything he makes. He has four strings and gets more sound and brilliance out of those four than many bands can get out of 2 guitarists, a drummer, and a bassist. Byrne's good, don't get me wrong, though his solo work is a little weak. Jake bleeds passion and enthusiasm while balancing these with the peace that comes with the ukulele. When one thinks of the uke, they think of Tiny Tim, of hula girls, of four chords and jokes. But there's so much more that can be done. _________________
Also, I do not say I dislike any piece of music before actually hearing it, in case you are implying that.
tekin wrote:
I'm not implying anything. You said it. You don't make any distinctions between liking/disliking an album and trying/not trying an album in your explanation of the word "offensive". You didn't say that you wouldn't try an album if it was inoffensive. What you meant was clearly that you don't like inoffensive albums and I'm saying that with that principle you have actually discovered a method to "not like" albums before listening to them. It may be meaningful for you, but most people wouldn't take you serious if you said you don't like an album before listening to it.
BTW, dude if you don't wanna argue or talk, no one is making you. You just can say that I don't wanna argue; it's fine. But here are your responses:
The Poe wrote:
And I think it was. It was just an attack without substance.
The Poe wrote:
...
No.
I think people can perfectly understand when I say you give the vibe that you have the ten commandments in your hands and you're descending the mountain and gonna give it to people and don't give a shit what those people have to say.
This place would be boring as fuck if everyone stuck to topic all the time. This thread has become a far more interesting one for straying from a simple chat about which of these two artists is better. I know one of your horses is involved in this race, but let's not attempt to stifle healthy discussion.
When I said, "Good lord, I hope not", it was meant in jest. I had hoped the wording would convey this, but the internet is the internet is the internet, and as such intentions and implications are often muddled beyond recognition.
That can happen. I didn't take what you said personally much, actually. I was making a general statement. I did also assume that you disliked me in general, though.
lethalnezzle wrote:
I think you have a habit of rubbing people up the wrong way, usually by indirectly implying that the music that many users enjoy is too simple or formulaic or mainstream or whatever, which in turn (though I'm sure this isn't your intention) implies that it is beneath you.
If I do, I do not do it consciously. I guess I do have the "broadening horizons" thing going. But honestly, I do feel there is more admiration in those who have tried more styles of music, especially from more places. It's part of my personal set of values, if it implies some sort of superiority thing, then... "oh well", I guess.
Let me put it this way. Who's opinion on hip hop will people take into more consideration, yours or mine? *gasp* Are they saying that my understanding of hip hop is beneath yours?
lethalnezzle wrote:
We all do this to some extent (my reaction to Meat Loaf or Boston or Moby or Muse or whatever has been similar), and as I said I don't think criticism should be curbed. The reason you come in for particular pressure from others here is that the music you often criticise covers a large spectrum within western popular music, which we all enjoy. Hence, we all become defensive. If somebody sits and criticises classic rock, only those who particularly enjoy classic rock jump to defend it. You criticise music that covers the entire gamut of Anglo popular music (I've seen you variously speak ill of much music within hip-hop, indie, rock music, in fact pretty much every major western genre) and so you tread on more toes than most. This is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, but you yourself admitted to having "abrasive" opinions.
This is a thoughtful post, thank you.
lethalnezzle wrote:
Semantics and intentions are fun things to quibble about.
This place would be boring as fuck if everyone stuck to topic all the time. This thread has become a far more interesting one for straying from a simple chat about which of these two artists is better. I know one of your horses is involved in this race, but let's not attempt to stifle healthy discussion.
That's the bit that's important here. From what I'd read, stuff was not healthy, that was petty arguing about vocab. If this becomes a debate of Kurt Cobain vs my salami sandwich, great, whatever, that would actually be a fun fight to watch, its just the way discussion was happening did not appear, to me, to be healthy or productive.
That said, I may have done a really crappy job of getting that across in my statement above ... _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
