Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nobody should care what anybody thinks of the music they like.-AC
Then why even argue about music in the first place? Shouldn't music be enjoyed and not discuss?
That's my personal philosophy on music. Don't argue it....listen to it. If you don't like it....you don't argue it. You just don't like it. It's like eating out in a Restaurant...once you taste it and hate it....you don't return.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So if I were to say The Beatles were fans who got suckered in by massive hype and reputation that actually and factually creates the illusion that they were more than they were...what would YOU say to that WD?Hmm, this WILL be a most interesting answer.
-AC
As I understand the success of a band is measure by the fans they build. Now in aesthetics (i.e. art..which music happens to be an artform) it's totally different...because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAnswer my question please, WD.
-AC
Now, you answer my question. Why argue about music in the first place?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As I understand the success of a band is measure by the fans they build. Now in aesthetics it's totally different...because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
People should not confuse objective accomplishments with subjective perception, as is common with The Beatles. In this case, the idea that because they are so loved (Subjective), they are therefore the objective best at everything, which is false. They are a massively hyped (Remember that word, WD?) band and as a result, their musical prowess, which wasn't as grand as their reputation, was rated with equal critique, which is wrong.
So ultimately, people like whatever they like as taste is subjective, and you feel that taste should not come under any scrutiny or discussion whatsoever, is that an accurate interpretation of your stance here? Just so I can be sure before I continue.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Now, you answer my question. Why argue about music in the first place?
You seem to be interpreting "argue" as some kind of fist-fighting.
I discuss music. Sometimes it's heated, others not so. I discuss music because I enjoy it, I enjoy discussing it, I am interested in what others have to say or feel on music that I enjoy or is of interest to me, or even if it's not. Also, I discuss music because I can, quite frankly.
Why discuss anything, then? Let's all just enjoy what we enjoy and never discuss anything lest someone's taste come under fire. No, silliness.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
People should not confuse objective accomplishments with subjective perception, as is common with The Beatles. In this case, the idea that because they are so loved (Subjective), they are therefore the objective best at everything, which is false. They are a massively hyped (Remember that word, WD?) band and as a result, their musical prowess, which wasn't as grand as their reputation, was rated with equal critique, which is wrong.So ultimately, people like whatever they like as taste is subjective, and you feel that taste should not come under any scrutiny or discussion whatsoever, is that an accurate interpretation of your stance here? Just so I can be sure before I continue.
I do remenber the word hype and you confusing with something technical. Hype is hype and can't be explain. It's just is...hype.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You seem to be interpreting "argue" as some kind of fist-fighting.I discuss music. Sometimes it's heated, others not so. I discuss music because I enjoy it, I enjoy discussing it, I am interested in what others have to say or feel on music that I enjoy or is of interest to me, or even if it's not. Also, I discuss music because I can, quite frankly.
Why discuss anything, then? Let's all just enjoy what we enjoy and never discuss anything lest someone's taste come under fire. No, silliness.
-AC
No...I happen to interpret argue with discussion. You discuss music because you enjoy it. Fine...so do we all who love music. When you say you have interest that means you're open minded. So if you're open minded you know how people are passionate about certains that you may or may not relate.
I'am not the type of music listener that argue about music base on fandom or hype. I don't even argue what music is and what music isn't...because music is an instrumental/vocal art. There are critics and there are lovers. However, just because I happen to disagree with the lovers (or find the same taste not the same as mine) I don't feel the need to critique them.
You have your own taste...I have my own taste...Person A have his own tastes....that's what makes the world interesting....we have different tastes.
Now, if person A decides to attack another person's taste...then person A is a imbecile...(btw-I and sometimes you are guility of..)
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I do remenber the word hype and you confusing with something technical. Hype is hype and can't be explain. It's just is...hype.
What happened to anyone buying into hype, that covered up massively for a lack of something else, being suckers and idiots? Hype is hype, here. I remember a previous discussion, about a previous person who people enjoyed because of his hype, despite lack of underlying substance, and you called them all idiots. ALL of them. Suckers and idiots.
Now we're discussing a band who people like a lot due to DECADES worth of hype that does NOT have anything to do with the music, and their MUSIC (Which in comparison to the hype, lacks a whole lot) is being credited falsely, which is worse than the previous scenario, and you're suggesting we all get along, and I shouldn't be so much as REMARKING on their taste?
You do have some explaining to do, you realise. I always knew that you only went with certain arguments when they suited you, I never knew it was this bad.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No...I happen to interpret argue with discussion. You discuss music because you enjoy it. Fine...so do we all who love music. When you say you have interest that means you're open minded. So if you're open minded you know how people are passionate about certains that you may or may not relate.
Yeah (Oh this is going to make you look like the single worst hypocrite on KMC).
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'am not the type of music listener that argue about music base on fandom or hype. I don't even argue what music is and what music isn't...because music is an instrumental/vocal art. There are critics and there are lovers. However, just because I happen to disagree with the lovers (or find the same taste not the same as mine) I don't feel the need to critique them.
So then, you would retract your previous abusive tirade (The likes of which I have never gone on) toward people indulging in something they were passionate about, despite you not being able to relate?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Because to critique another person's tastes is more hypocritical than anything else. You have your own taste...I have my own taste...Person A have his own tastes....that's what makes the world interesting....we have different tastes.
So retract your entire argument from the other thread, then.
I sat there and watch you call people suckers and idiots, without exception, because they liked something you did not. Now you are telling me I cannot so much as critique a person's taste, even if I do so civilly?
You are a joke, my friend.
I do not shut my taste of from critique, I just don't give a shit who does it and what they say, ultimately. It doesn't affect me. If me doing the same affects others, tough. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, as you implied.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Now, if person A decides to attack another person's taste...then person A is a imbecile.
So you admit you're an imbecile?
EDIT: So you do admit that.
The difference is, as opinionated as I am on music taste, I will never tell ANYBODY they are wrong to like something. The demeanour you displayed in the previous thread was unbelievable, and you are exposing yourself as a shameful hypocrite right now.
In closing; you don't think anybody should have their taste critiqued. I think that's a silly notion.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What happened to anyone buying into hype, that covered up massively for a lack of something else, being suckers and idiots? Hype is hype, here. I remember a previous discussion, about a previous person who people enjoyed because of his hype, despite lack of underlying substance, and you called them all idiots. ALL of them. Suckers and idiots.
Like you said that was another discussion. Trying to bring comments out of context?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You do have some explaining to do, you realise. I always knew that you only went with certain arguments when they suited you, I never knew it was this bad.Yeah (Oh this is going to make you look like the single worst hypocrite on KMC).
What explain is there to be done? I was clear when I say I don't discuss music much...I listen and enjoy it.
AC you're using the word hypocrite so many times that is not even funny. What in the world made you the law on this?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
[B
So then, you would retract your previous abusive tirade (The likes of which I have never gone on) toward people indulging in something they were passionate about, despite you not being able to relate?[/b]
Trying to bring comments out context. My issue was that people were confusing two things that are not. Which I think you're finally understanding. That is if you want to.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So retract your entire argument from the other thread, then.
Why? You said it...from the other other thread...meaning another discussion.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I sat there and watch you call people suckers and idiots, without exception, because they liked something you did not. Now you are telling me I cannot so much as critique a person's taste, even if I do so civilly?You are a joke, my friend.
No, I call them suckers and idiots for not telling the difference between two different things. You my not so friendly friend aren't even close to civility with your attitude.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I do not shut my taste of from critique, I just don't give a shit who does it and what they say, ultimately. It doesn't affect me. If me doing the same affects others, tough. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, as you implied.So you admit you're an imbecile?
-AC
Then if you dont' give a shit....(again this contradictory attitude of yours) why even argue in the first place?
I did admit I can make imbecile remarks...yeah, just like you.
Edit Note:
I just remenber you came out with the "you like Coldplay and U2" remarks as if you have some superior authority. All I ever did say I was just a fan...not some enforcer.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Like you said that was another discussion. Trying to bring comments out of context?
Out of context? You took issue with people judging substance by hype, to the point of calling anyone who enjoyed the hype, idiots and suckers.
We're essentially discussing fans of a band doing the same thing and now you're saying we should respect them and not say anything cos it's their favourite band.
You're a hypocrite.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
What explain is there to be done? I was clear when I say I don't discuss music much...I listen and enjoy it.AC you're using the word hypocrite so many times that is not even funny. What in the world made you the law on this?
What do you mean who made me the law? You are directly contradicting your previously held stance, I'm calling you on it and you're weaselling out as I knew you would. At least admit it.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Trying to bring comments out context. My issue was that people were confusing two things that are not. Which I think you're finally understanding. That is if you want to.
So am I, though.
Hype is not substance, substance is not hype. You took issue with people judging one man's substance (Or lack thereof), on his hype, calling anybody who did so "suckers" and "idiots", as well as other analogies.
Here, we are discussing people judging a band's substance on their hype. In both cases, the quantity of the substance did in NO WAY match up to the hype, and in both case people (And there are always exceptions) were judging the substance because they loved the hype.
Why are you now doing a 180? I'm not bringing anything out of context, you're just sore because it is exactly what it is. You have issue with hype being mistaken for substance or technicality, as do I, and yet...you are saying we shouldn't confront or critique those doing it here, simply because they are passionate about the subjects involved. This was not your stance previously.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Why? You said it...from the other other thread...meaning another discussion.
So? I'm not focusing so much on what was being discussed as I am on WHY you were discussing it, and right now, you are proving yourself a hypocrite. No more or less need be said.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No, I call them suckers and idiots for not telling the difference between two different things. You my not so friendly friend aren't even close to civility with your attitude.
And confusing The Beatles' HYPE with their SUBSTANCE AND TECHNIQUE is what I have issue with. Just as you had issue with people confusing hype with substance and technique. YOU, then, were all for being generalising and insulting toward people and their passions, even going so far as to ignoring the explanations and painting everyone the same colour.
I am not doing that, I accept that there are varying fandoms of fans of the band. You said that anyone who likes the man in question was an idiot and a sucker. You are now proposing we show respect to passions, you didn't before. You're a hypocrite. Try all you want, you will not get out of this.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Then if you dont' give a shit....(again this contradictory attitude of yours) why even argue in the first place?
I said I don't give a shit about what people say about MY taste, because I don't. That's not to say I deprive them of their right to say it. I just don't care if they do.
The people who tend to care are those who care what others think, and I do not cater to those.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Did I admit I can make imbecile remarks...yeah, just like you.
Don't be sore that I've exposed you as KMC's worst hypocrite, but let's not stop there. Let me nail you down once more...
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I just remenber you came out with the "you like Coldplay and U2" remarks as if you have some superior authority. All I ever did say I was just a fan...not some enforcer.
Now YOU are genuinely taking what I said out of context. I actually said this:
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly. You like Coldplay, they entertain you. Many credible music fans would laugh at you, like you're laughing at WWE fans. I'm one of them.Point being, I don't act like you're somehow a lesser person because of it, or stupid, or that you got suckered in. You, on the other hand, are ignorant.
Last bit again:
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Point being, I don't act like you're somehow a lesser person because of it, or stupid, or that you got suckered in. You, on the other hand, are ignorant, because you do so.
So think, just think, before you reply, or quit while you're ahead.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Out of context? You took issue with people judging substance by hype, to the point of calling anyone who enjoyed the hype, idiots and suckers.We're essentially discussing fans of a band doing the same thing and now you're saying we should respect them and not say anything cos it's their favourite band.
You're a hypocrite.
What do you mean who made me the law? You are directly contradicting your previously held stance, I'm calling you on it and you're weaselling out as I knew you would. At least admit it.
So am I, though.
Hype is not substance, substance is not hype. You took issue with people judging one man's substance (Or lack thereof), on his hype, calling anybody who did so "suckers" and "idiots", as well as other analogies.
Here, we are discussing people judging a band's substance on their hype. In both cases, the quantity of the substance did in NO WAY match up to the hype, and in both case people (And there are always exceptions) were judging the substance because they loved the hype.
Why are you now doing a 180? I'm not bringing anything out of context, you're just sore because it is exactly what it is. You have issue with hype being mistaken for substance or technicality, as do I, and yet...you are saying we shouldn't confront or critique those doing it here, simply because they are passionate about the subjects involved. This was not your stance previously.
So? I'm not focusing so much on what was being discussed as I am on WHY you were discussing it, and right now, you are proving yourself a hypocrite. No more or less need be said.
And confusing The Beatles' HYPE with their SUBSTANCE AND TECHNIQUE is what I have issue with. Just as you had issue with people confusing hype with substance and technique. YOU, then, were all for being generalising and insulting toward people and their passions, even going so far as to ignoring the explanations and painting everyone the same colour.
I am not doing that, I accept that there are varying fandoms of fans of the band. You said that anyone who likes the man in question was an idiot and a sucker. You are now proposing we show respect to passions, you didn't before. You're a hypocrite. Try all you want, you will not get out of this.
I said I don't give a shit about what people say about MY taste, because I don't. That's not to say I deprive them of their right to say it. I just don't care if they do.
The people who tend to care are those who care what others think, and I do not cater to those.
Don't be sore that I've exposed you as KMC's worst hypocrite.
-AC
AC it's pretty obvious you're trying to drag one discussion of something into another. You doing your typical 10,000 word posts to do it. Let's focus on The Beatles. It's too clear that my comments were like sulfur to an open wound for you in the other thread. That is why you're trying to collide two things into one.
If you didn't give a shit...this and any other discussion you've participated in the past would have not taken place. You do give a shit enough to come out and argue. Don't use the "I don't give a shit" attitude anymore. You fail with it.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
AC it's pretty obvious you're trying to drag one discussion of something into another. You doing your typical 10,000 word posts to do it. Let's focus on The Beatles. It's too clear that my comments were like sulfur to an open wound for you in the other thread. That is why you're trying to collide two things into one.
It's really not. The fact of the matter is, you had a stance, now you're contradicting it because it suits you.
You argued against substance being mistaken for hype, I am doing the same. You called people idiots for doing so, now you're saying those people doing it should not be critiqued and anyone doing so is an imbecile.
That is the long and short of it. Anyone who saw either debate will notice that. I am 100% at comfort here, because nothing I am saying is incorrect nor under threat. You are the one bothered.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
If you didn't give a shit...this and any other discussion you've participated in the past would have not taken place. You do give a shit enough to come out and argue. Don't use the "I don't give a shit" attitude anymore. You fail with it.
Do you even understand what I was saying I didn't give a shit about? Do you read the posts or make up what you want to be in them?
I said I DO make an effort to discuss and debate, not that I didn't give a shit about debating. I said I critique people cos I have the right to an opinion, but do not assume it's anything more than opinion where taste is concerned. I then said, people can feel free to critique me all they want, because I do not give a shit what they say about me.
Either get it right or stop trying to interpret my points. So yes, let's discuss The Beatles:
They are a band who's substance is being praised for their hype, which is wrong. Thus, my argument, thus my argument against Capt. Spaulding. People who confuse the two.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriEither get it right or stop trying to interpret my points. So yes, let's discuss The Beatles:
They are a band who's substance is being praised for their hype, which is wrong. Thus, my argument, thus my argument against Capt. Spaulding. People who confuse the two.
-AC
Yes, let's "us" discuss The Beatles. I'm not a Beatles fan. You may quote me anywhere were I say I was. I happen to like some songs but not others. So I don't consider myself a fan.
If Capt Spaulding confuses the two...then you're no one above him to call him on it. You've done the same in the past. I'm sure I've done something similar to that in the past. I can reflect on my mistakes....can you?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
If Capt Spaulding confuses the two...then you're no one above him to call him on it. You've done the same in the past. I'm sure done it similar to that in the past. I can reflect on my mistakes....can you?
Who are you to say I'm nobody to call him on it? I have the right to free speech and an opinion. If he's out there doing the same, so shall I. Except the problem is, he is confusing fact with opinion. I'll call anyone that does that, nobody can take away my right to that freedom of speech. He is free to say it too, he's just incorrect.
No reason why one should be protected and not the other.
If you had your way, we'd all be saying nothing, or everyone would be saying everything with nobody having opinions on anything else.
-AC
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarfI don't understand this post.
Yes, let's "us" discuss The Beatles. I'm not a Beatles fan. You may quote me anywhere were I say I was. I happen to like some songs but not others. So I don't consider myself a fan.If Capt Spaulding confuses the two...then you're no one above him to call him on it. You've done the same in the past. I'm sure I've done something similar to that in the past. I can reflect on my mistakes....can you?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who are you to say I'm nobody to call him on it? I have the right to free speech and an opinion. If he's out there doing the same, so shall I.No reason why one should be protected and not the other.
-AC
You may have the same free speech and opinion. That doesn't mean it's the right one.
Example:
There is a very obese man sitting down in a bench inside a park. I walk up to him and tell him "You're a big fat person that needs to excercise". I'am using my free speech and I'm even pointing out a fact. Does that make it right?
Ever heard of using of prudence?
If he is doing the same...oh well, that's him not you. But if you want to play "monkey see...monkey do" meaning you want to lower to his level. Then K.O. yourself.
EDIT NOTE (Again)
Full stop...we're getting off topic as far as The Beatles discussions. Let's take a break from each other.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
You may have the same free speech and opinion. That doesn't mean it's the right one.
No, it being the right one means it's the right one, in this case.
"The Beatles are the most innovative musical group ever.", that's an objective claim, and he is incorrect, and everyone here with a sense of musical evolution and history could prove he is incorrect. I have done so.
If it was "The Beatles make the best music ever and everything else sucks.", there's no wrong or right. It's subjective taste.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There is a very obese man sitting down in a bench inside a park. I walk up to him and tell him "You're a big fat person that needs to excercise". I'am using my free speech and I'm even pointing out a fact. Does that make it right?Ever heard of using of prudence and condemn?
You're equating verbal abuse with proving an ignorant fan of The Beatles, factually wrong, when they are...factually wrong? You don't have a good grasp of what's going on here.
I am not misusing my freedom of speech and opinion by having a debate.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
If he is doing the same...oh well, that's him not you. But if you want to play "monkey see...monkey do" meaning you want to lower to his level. Then K.O. yourself.
You don't understand the situation. I am not saying "You f*cking c*nt idiot.", am I? I'm critiquing his claim of "The Beatles are the most innovative musical group ever.", because I have the right to do so, as it's factually incorrect. He is making an objective claim based on subjective hype.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, it being the right one means it's the right one, in this case."The Beatles are the most innovative musical group ever.", that's an objective claim, and he is incorrect, and everyone here with a sense of musical evolution and history could prove he is incorrect. I have done so.
If it was "The Beatles make the best music ever and everything else sucks.", there's no wrong or right. It's subjective taste.
Hold on AC. You're making sound like your free speech opinion is the right one? No, I don't agree. That it's yours it's yours. I can't take it away. But is it the right one. I dunno.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're equating verbal abuse with proving an ignorant fan of The Beatles, factually wrong, when they are...factually wrong? You don't have a good grasp of what's going on here.
Do notice I' am providing a fact. So what's more important? Verbal abuse or a fact. Or would it be better to measure words more properly to tell a fact?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You don't understand the situation. I am not saying "You f*cking c*nt idiot.", am I? I'm critiquing his claim of "The Beatles are the most innovative musical group ever.", because I have the right to do so, as it's factually incorrect. He is making an objective claim based on subjective hype.
Well, you can say to yourself....but you can't post it. Because if you posted you get your comments edited and a warning for member bashing. As a music fan you can make that critique. It's your reactions to the comments. So upon reflection..yeah, it's fair ball.
I have to a break. We'll chat more tomorrow. I have to get going for some AC time (i.e. Assassins Creed)
No, see, there are differences.
If your freedom of speech choice is to say that "Hitler became the president of the United States of America in the fall of 332 BC", that is wrong. There are differences. Not all opinions are equal.
"The Beatles invented the instruments they played" Wrong Opinion
"The Beatles made the greatest music with their instruments" Subjective Opinion
It is a very important difference that many people with outrageous and obviously wrong claims try to hide. There are things that can be scientifically proven. OPINIONS CAN BE WRONG!
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Hold on AC. You're making sound like your free speech opinion is the right one? No, I don't agree. That it's yours it's yours. I can't take it away. But is it the right one. I dunno.
Yes, it is. The Beatles are not the most innovative (Specific criteria has been inserted now, so it becomes objective) musical group ever. There were bands before and since who have done more innovative, progressive things.
That's a factual, incorrect claim. So you're right, you "dunno". If you actually research it, you'd know.
It's not opinion. They actually are not the most innovative musical group ever. That's nothing to do with taste.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Do notice I' am providing a fact. So what's more important? Verbal abuse or a fact. Or would it be better to measure words more properly to tell a fact?
The difference is, I am not making anything personal. I am discussing something that just HAPPENS to be someone's passion, and it being their passion does not protect the discussion from being open to critique. He made a factual, incorrect claim and I am correcting him.
I am not overstepping the mark by replying to someone and having a debate with them. You are suggesting simply because it means a lot to someone, that I need to tread carefully, I think that's bs. If I said what you said to the fat guy, correct and factual or not, he would have justification to be personally insulted or offended, because it's about him, regardless of whether or not I meant to do so.
People taking The Beatles personally? They do not deserve that kind of discretion, because it's not a personal debate. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that all someone need do to avoid critique is say "I take this personally.". We could be discussing favourite chocolate.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Well, you can say to yourself....but you can't post it. Because if you posted you get your comments edited and a warning for member bashing. As a music fan you can make that critique. It's your reactions to the comments.
Well then what's your point?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I have to a break. We'll chat more tomorrow. I have to get going. Sounds good?
In light of the above quote, I'm not entirely sure what'd be left to say, but sure.
-AC
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, see, there are differences.If your freedom of speech choice is to say that "Hitler became the president of the United States of America in the fall of 332 BC", that is wrong. There are differences. Not all opinions are equal.
"The Beatles invented the instruments they played" Wrong Opinion
"The Beatles made the greatest music with their instruments" Subjective OpinionIt is a very important difference that many people with outrageous and obviously wrong claims try to hide. There are things that can be scientifically proven. OPINIONS CAN BE WRONG!
Those aren't opinions...those are wrong assumptions.
Just like "some" opinions can be wrong. Some opinions can't be wrong.
Anywhoo...I have AC (video game) in my mind right now. Must chat some more. Excuse the departure.
See eveyone tomorrow.