Do You Know What You Like, And Like What You Know?
marcus
Do you know what you like, and like what you know?
Up until approx 1985, I was an avid concert goer, record collector,
and radio listener of Rock music. I wrote album and concert reviews
for a local alternative weekly paper specializing in local bands where
I lived, and occasionally appeared as a guest on local radio
programming. I loved the music of the Sixties and Seventies best, but
I was into the newer artists of the early 80s (e.g. Pretenders, U2,
Police). That predilection dwindled dramatically in 1986. The
reason? I became a father for the first time. The responsibilities
of parenthood, combined with job commitments, changing jobs, loss of
income, and dealing with the problems of aging parents led me to have
less interest in keeping up with new music. These factors continued,
shifting in different directions, but still with the same result, I no
longer had the large amount of "free time" to indulge in musical
preoccupation.
I am sure that I am not alone in that situation. There is a normal
tendency as we get older, and life takes its toll, and tugs us in many
directions, to not have the same "passion" as we once did for things
when our lives were not bogged down with the responsibilities of
adulthood. The exception being those individuals who are still
performing musicians, or who have jobs in the music industry, or who
write about music etc. But, the vast majority of us are not in that
group.
I still don't have the time, inclination, or passion to involve myself
in "newer" music, but that doesn't take away from me enjoying music
stretching all the way from the late 1950s to the early 1980s anymore
than someone who loves classical music, but has no interest in new
artists of 2010.
I just don't have the time, or the wherewithal to keep myself
constantly informed of every new musical avenue that pops up every few
years...and ya know what, it doesn't bother me in the least...cause I
know what I like, and I like what I know, and I don't think there is
anything wrong with that.
Do you?
Eric Ramon
one thing you can do that's fun is use Pandora or Jango or whatever to
find new stuff. I have a bunch of Pandora stations and one of them is
"Belle and Sebastian". All of these interesting songs come up from
groups I would never have heard of, like Private Eleanor, Sweedish,
The Stereotypes...
There's a lot of good stuff going on now. There's also a mix of decent
and horrifying stuff that you can see on Fuse or MTV.
Sheik Barack Hussein
>
> Do you know what you like, and like what you know?
>
> I just don't have the time, or the wherewithal to keep myself
> constantly informed of every new musical avenue that pops up every few
> years...and ya know what, it doesn't bother me in the least...cause I
> know what I like, and I like what I know, and I don't think there is
> anything wrong with that.
>
> Do you?
Hell no.
JohnB
> Pertaining to music:
>
> Do you know what you like, and like what you know?
>
>
> I just don't have the time, or the wherewithal to keep myself
> constantly informed of every new musical avenue that pops up every few
> years...and ya know what, it doesn't bother me in the least...cause I
> know what I like, and I like what I know, and I don't think there is
> anything wrong with that.
>
> Do you?
I do - but it's not the random way I used to use way back. There was a
time I would want to listen to anything (at least once), I'd even buy
an album (from the discount rack) because I liked the sleeve. I used
to buy loads of music magazines and read every review.
These days I get just the one magazine - R2 (formerly Rock'n'Reel) -
because I know I can trust the leads I get from this magazine. Thanks
to MySpace, YouTube and Amazon's (and others') samples, etc, there's
also chance to check things out further before I commit to a purchase.
Sometimes I get recommendations from friends. As a result, though I
still love the 60s and 70s music I grew up with, I can still find good
new music like Midlake and Laura Marling.
My appetite for new music is undiminished. I'm just a little more
guided in where and how I seek.
richforman
Newer music doesn't take any more time or money to listen to than
older music. So just be honest with yourself about the fact that the
issue is that you're simply not interested.
richforman
Donna
Why do you say that? Besides a lack of time, he pretty much stated a
lack of interest these days.
Martin Hofner
> > > artists of 2010.
>
> > > I just don't have the time, or the wherewithal to keep myself
> > > constantly informed of every new musical avenue that pops up every few
> > > years...and ya know what, it doesn't bother me in the least...cause I
> > > know what I like, and I like what I know, and I don't think there is
> > > anything wrong with that.
>
> > > Do you?
>
> > Newer music doesn't take any more time or money to listen to than
> > older music. So just be honest with yourself about the fact that the
> > issue is that you're simply not interested.
>
> > richforman
>
> Why do you say that? Besides a lack of time, he pretty much stated a
> lack of interest these days.
=====================
Big Question:
If you listened to everything you own, or possess via vinyl, CD,
computer files (eliminate duplications) How long would it take to go
through all your stuff?
If you are nothing less than a boomer, probably a lifetime, in your
spare time, not a lunchtime...
globular
Everything old is new again and again. The new is old again and again.
I stopped being interested in music by the early 90s or late 80s. I
found the odd group in the 90s I might have liked for a bit. But now
it's like when I was in my teens in the 70s and very rarely find
anything new I can like.
I had a new lease of life of interest at about the end of the 70s and
early 80s. I am in Melbourne, and you should look up a DVD called Dogs
In Space, starring Michael Hutchence, from 1986 and the special features
too, and see all about the 'little bands' scene of the late 70s. The
movie is based on a true story and events and lacks a story, except the
powerful ending, which is true too. Like a lot of others, in some way I
crossed paths with those of that house.
As one person of that time, the late 70s says, 'I grew up in a period
where my own culture was not validated', I wish I could recall the exact
words.
My tastes of that new wave period are probably different to yours too.
It's funny watching the documentary with that movie, it presents
Melbourne a bit like Liverpool in the early 60s where much was devloping
but it seemed as if nothing was happening and people would eat up
anything of what was going on in Britain or America.
rwalker
wrote:
>Everything old is new again and again.
My father was not really interested in anything written after 1850.
Not a typo, that's 1850. He enjoyed hearing some newer music
occasionally (I recall that he liked the 5th Dimension, for example,
but not enough to buy their records), but his record collection was
all orchestral music. I guess I follow his example. I listen to what
I like, and so be it.
Jeff
It takes more time because there is more music out there
than there ever was, and he doesn't have the interest.
It's a big job, just going through tons of material to
find out what he likes. As you get older, there is less
interest.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> Pertaining to music:
>
> Do you know what you like,
No. What I like is influenced by my mood and environment. Something
that sounds good to me one day may not the next, although it may sound
good the day after that. Or in a several years, so I like to try to
revisit things later that didn't work for me before. Sometimes it makes
sense now even if it didn't before.
> and like what you know?
Yes, but I don't know everything, so I don't stick to what I know.
I like finding new stuff, but I also like spending quality time with
music. I can rarely listen to something once or twice and fully digest
it. It can take hours, months, or years. I'm in no hurry.
I also don't care if it's newly produced music. I have little interest
in knowing who new bands are. I'm just as happy discovering a jazz
artist from the '50s or some classical music. If it's new to me, that's
good enough.
I've got tons of recordings that I still haven't fully assimilated, so
I'm not particularly driven to seek out more. I don't have to look hard
for it - plenty (more than I need) comes to me via friends or the
internet. Even if it wasn't for them, I could still spend many years
discovering the music I already own. Not to mention playing and
learning various musical instruments.
dahldude
> On 26 May 2010, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote in
After assembling the core stuff via Whitburn's U.S. Top 40 Single and
U.S. Top Albums books, I copped some import psychedelic compilations
and discovered some stuff that charted in the U.K. but not here (U.S.)
during the late sixties and early seventies. So I got a book of Top 10
U.K. hits and started drilling through that. Lately, I've been mostly
grabbing any and all late sixties psych stuff and completing certain
bands' collections. Someday I may get to listen to it all. Don't feel
compelled to know who's hot this week or who's going to be next week,
because "hot" is defined by whoever and now, more than ever, so very
transitory. More people now than ever have access to affordable
instruments and recording gear, so trying to keep up, be complete, and
know it all is impossible.
I agree that priorities change with time and with that, the
inspiration / compulsion to always keep up or even just snoop around
for old stuff can't be there if there's a real life around you that
needs your babysitting. If you're happy, a wise you won't let someone
else try to make you feel guilty / belittle you because you don't know
about some new all important album / band.
"Take It Easy, Baby, Take It As It Comes"
Pandora is a great no-brainer way to get outside your own collection
but maybe stay in a certain genre zone that you like.
RichL
news:3d60b6d1-f187-42ec...@c13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Disagree, in the sense that (as has been discussed here before [and berated
by some]), it's not as easy to find GOOD stuff, e.g., you don't have radio
stations (generally) that play a huge selection of different genres of music
that you can listen to and pick & choose from.
I never was a HUGE consumer of albums even back in the day, but these days
I'm getting them at almost the same rate as in the "golden era", and most of
them are fairly recent releases. But instead of getting recommendations
from my peers as I did back then, I'm getting them from folks 20-40 years
younger than I am, I'm letting Pandora lead me to new stuff that shares
similarities with my old favorites, etc.
RichL
news:5f7bf01a-e81f-4274...@z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> Pertaining to music:
>
> Do you know what you like, and like what you know?
I like what I know, but I don't know what I like because I haven't finished
the journey yet. There's always something new that catches my eye, whether
it's "NEW" new or old, undiscovered (by me) new.
>
> I am sure that I am not alone in that situation. There is a normal
> tendency as we get older, and life takes its toll, and tugs us in many
> directions, to not have the same "passion" as we once did for things
> when our lives were not bogged down with the responsibilities of
> adulthood. The exception being those individuals who are still
> performing musicians, or who have jobs in the music industry, or who
> write about music etc. But, the vast majority of us are not in that
> group.
My collection would probably be put to shame by most other music-oriented
folks on this newsgroup, so it's not like I was any kind of fanatic back in
the day to begin with. I don't know if I'm odd in that respect, being a
musician. I'd LISTEN to an awful lot of stuff (radio, with friends, etc.)
but I only wound up buying the things that REALLY grabbed me. In that
sense, I'm the same now as I was then, and the life events that you
described didn't affect my personal pattern all that much.
One thing for me is that it only takes me a couple of listens to have a song
in my head to the extent that I can play it (guitar or piano or both) with a
reasonable degree of confidence. So I don't need to OWN a piece of music to
be able to play it.
>
> I still don't have the time, inclination, or passion to involve myself
> in "newer" music, but that doesn't take away from me enjoying music
> stretching all the way from the late 1950s to the early 1980s anymore
> than someone who loves classical music, but has no interest in new
> artists of 2010.
There have always been at least a few performers who have intrigued me, from
the mid-50s to now.
>
> I just don't have the time, or the wherewithal to keep myself
> constantly informed of every new musical avenue that pops up every few
> years...and ya know what, it doesn't bother me in the least...cause I
> know what I like, and I like what I know, and I don't think there is
> anything wrong with that.
I won't go so far as to criticize you for that, but I'd say you're missing a
lot of stuff that you'd probably like.
For me the discovery process doesn't end, even though I'm not obsessed with
it and I probably never was.
I mentioned Pandora radio in another post and so did dahldude. It's a
painless way to introduce yourself to new music that's connected in some way
with your favorite stuff. If you really like music, you owe it to yourself
to give it a try.
The Nice Mean Man
If you've got the time to spend in here listening to these people’s
half-wit claptrap, then you've got time to keep up on your music. And
don't tell me that "you get a lot of it here". Bullshit. Get the fuck
out and spend this same time doing the other shit. I know. THIS is the
expendable thing. Not the concert scene or the trips to the record
store or the time you and your significant other set aside for listing
to what you gather in. I'm not trying to be rid of you. Just stating
the facts as I see them.
> I still don't have the time, inclination, or passion to involve myself
> in "newer" music, but that doesn't take away from me enjoying music
> stretching all the way from the late 1950s to the early 1980s anymore
> than someone who loves classical music, but has no interest in new
> artists of 2010.
>
Me either, for the most part. But there are other scenes. Just look at
what Robert Plant drifted into. Mountain music offers a fresh, no-
frills rejuvenation to those deeper 'roots' that we all have inside
somewhere. And I'm not necessarily talking Flatt and Scruggs either.
Today's bluegrass and mountain music is made by a score of younger
musicians. Many of them who are a whole lot younger than you.
Then we have the blues. Another world of new beginnings. I got the
wife into it AND old time country, so now we got plenty to dig and
discover when we don't want to hear Suite Judy Blue Eyes for the
millionth time...
There are a couple of the newer bands that I highly recommend. Tool
and Incubus. And Pearl Jam, of course. They aren’t really new, I
guess....just hitting their stride. And alot of the old bands are
still making great music, as you probably already know. THAT's what we
like to keep up on more than anything else. Buy the record. Hit the
show. Same as the old days.
> I just don't have the time, or the wherewithal to keep myself
> constantly informed of every new musical avenue that pops up every few
> years...and ya know what, it doesn't bother me in the least...cause I
> know what I like, and I like what I know, and I don't think there is
> anything wrong with that.
>
> Do you?
>
That depends on how long you can find the wherewithal to tolerate
another round of Judy Blue Eyes. Getting away some distance and giving
your heart to another girl might be just what the doctor ordered. And
that starts with delegating your dwindling time wisely. Like the time
you waste.... HERE
I'm not bullshitting you. Honest! ;)
marcus
"And that starts with delegating your dwindling time wisely. Like the
time you waste.... HERE"
That may the only intelligent thing I've ever read from you.
However, I spend sooooooooooooo much less time on Usenet and the
internet in general than I once did...ya know why?...I don't have the
time.
The Nice Mean Man
> On May 27, 8:55 pm, The Nice Mean Man <hitherand...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "And that starts with delegating your dwindling time wisely. Like the
> time you waste.... HERE"
>
> That may the only intelligent thing I've ever read from you.
>
Yeah. That's because it was the first time that I stooped to help you
up.
> However, I spend sooooooooooooo much less time on Usenet and the
> internet in general than I once did...ya know why?...I don't have the
> time.
And you won't be missed. Let me be the first to voice that. You can
believe what you read here, too. Fucking pathetic wussy-assed JERK.
The Nice Mean Man
marcus
> Newer music doesn't take any more time or money to listen to than
> older music. So just be honest with yourself about the fact that the
> issue is that you're simply not interested.
>
> richforman-
I am being honest...I already said that I wasn't interested, in
addition to not having the time even if I were.
Truth be told, I don't have the time to listen to the music I like.
The other day, I listened to the "Love" album, and it was the first
time I listened to music in a long time, save for snippets here and
there on my car radio, driving to and fro.
I have read a few of the responses from those who still have the time
to pursue new music, or even older music that you weren't familiar
with before...and I say "good for you", but that isn't my
experience...perhaps if I were a musician, someone working in the
music industry, writing about music, or someone without many
responsibilities, I would have copious free time to indulge in such
pleasantries.
marcus
I didn't say I was leaving, fucktard.
The Nice Mean Man
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, really.....? I'll bet that I can make you leave :)
Dale Houstman
I don't think that's quite what is being said. True, new music is no
more demanding than older music, but that older music has already been
listened to and absorbed into one's background, and its acceptance
predates the natural slowing down of one's passions and energy with age.
It's not true of everyone I suppose, but aging does have its effects.
I've noticed in myself and others a tendency to relate more and more
with the culture of one's past, to forgo new initiatives in lieu of
older comforts.
dmh
richforman
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't think what we're saying is that different from each other,
Dale. There's a laziness that sets in with regard to this, with age.
In my case it's true and not true: in just recent years, the last five
to ten maybe, I have had a resurgence in my drive to at least expose
myself and listen to lots of new-to-me (some of it actually perfectly
old, as other posters have mentioned) music - I think because in the
digital age it's actually easier than ever to find and hear stuff that
you didn't know but that you'll like - thru venues like Pandora/
Slacker and satellite radio - which play to niches and serve up non-
mainstream material based on your specific and tastes and preferences
if you let them. (In the old days, if it wasn't in the "mainstream"
you had to pretty much buy it or have friends who owned it, in order
to explore and hear other stuff - seems to me that's not the case now
- with minimal effort, and without even knowing exactly what it is
you're looking for - you can find and hear so much of what's out
there, for free.) It's as if now that I approach the north side of
middle-age, I have a sense of having limited time left and am less
inclined to spend it listening to stuff I have heard millions of times
already, and would rather try to check out the rest of what's out
there for me. On the other hand, my scope of my music appreciation
and exposure has gotten wider but not deeper - in that as I expose
myself to and explore these varoius new things, I generally don't have
the commitment that I did when I was younger to listen to them
multiple times - to as you say "absorb" them and drink more deeply in
their pleasures - I'm happy to just listen to a whole bunch of
different stuff, just once or twice. A track or two from new or new-
to-me artists without needing to go listen to the whole album.
True, taking advantage of this wealth of available and easily-
discovered music does take the willingness to learn how to use the new
tools I mentioned, but it's not that much of a hurdle.
richforman
globular
Well who wants to listen to all that modern music after 1900 anyway,
Schoenberg etc.? And that non-scale they used, maybe for disciplining
Germans.
who?
> marcus rationalized:
>
> > I just don't have the time, or the wherewithal to keep myself
> > constantly informed of every new musical avenue that pops up every few
> > years...and ya know what, it doesn't bother me in the least...cause I
> > know what I like, and I like what I know, and I don't think there is
> > anything wrong with that.
>
> > Do you?
>
> Beatles, politics, '60s culture and endless event anniversaries, and
> compose lengthy, indulgent essays on the same. Don't give yourself the
> excuse that it's purely a matter of time.
>
> This is the heart of your post:
>
> "I still don't have the time, inclination, or passion to involve myself
>
> Yes. You have lost your inclination and passion.
>
> What's wrong with "I know what I like, and I like what I know" is that,
> despite realizing you're decades out of the loop on the music scene,
> you're still confident in asserting that the Beatles are *factually* the
> greatest band ever by a mile, that all music is going downhill, that
> your era had it best, etc. etc. When you don't even know what the
> current era has.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, Eric, but I have to ask these
questions:
1. How much current music would Marcus have to listen
to...to determine what bands aren't better than the
Beatles?
2. What bands do you think he should listen to, that
would change his mind that the Beatles aren't the
best band? Thanks.
Jales
>
> Well who wants to listen to all that modern music after 1900 anyway,
> Schoenberg etc.? And that non-scale they used, maybe for disciplining
> Germans.
I see your point, but there is very good music way past 1850. I think
good music has no time... in other words: there's always been and
there always will be good music, if you define good music (a relative
concept) as I do: the music I want to hear again, more than once in my
life...
Having said that, I guess I'll have no time in this life to hear all
the music I'd like to hear
Eric Ramon
an elderly gent down the street loves music from the 20s and 30s. He's
got a staggering collection that I hope he eventually donates to a
museum. He makes up CDs for me, which is awfully nice. I don't think
I'd hear it any other way.
Which leads me to the conclusion that we "find" the music we hear from
whatever life sends us. In my youth the radio stations played what I
like. Now they don't so radio is out. I know there's lots of good
stuff happening but radio is all easy money, i.e. conservative talk or
sports talk or American Idol style pop. At least here in Portland
there is no station I'm aware of that plays good...I hate to use the
term alternative music but it's definitely alternative to Z100. The so-
called alternative station might as well be an 80s oldies station.
Keep your ears open, if you hear something you like, try to remember
enough so that you can google it and find out what it is, then slap
that into Pandora.
who?
> "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > What's wrong with "I know what I like, and I like what I know" is that,
> > > despite realizing you're decades out of the loop on the music scene,
> > > you're still confident in asserting that the Beatles are *factually* the
> > > greatest band ever by a mile, that all music is going downhill, that
> > > your era had it best, etc. etc. When you don't even know what the
> > > current era has.
>
> > I'm not trying to pick a fight, Eric, but I have to ask these
> > questions:
>
> > 1. How much current music would Marcus have to listen
> > to...to determine what bands aren't better than the
> > Beatles?
>
> > 2. What bands do you think he should listen to, that
> > would change his mind that the Beatles aren't the
> > best band? Thanks.
>
> Beatles are the best ever or not. It's a question of being goofily
> certain this is a "fact," when it can only be an opinion.
I didn't miss that Eric, and of course the Beatles being the
best band is just an opinion. Nothing more.
On top of
> that, it's about being so certain even when he has a pretty limited
> exposure to the competition, and a severe bias toward music of a certain
> era.
But you haven't answered my two questions.
Please let him be so certain, and please provide the names
of bands that you believe that would be the best bands,
other than the Beatles. Thank you.
Jeff
marcus
>
> I don't think that's quite what is being said. True, new music is no
> more demanding than older music, but that older music has already been
> listened to and absorbed into one's background, and its acceptance
> predates the natural slowing down of one's passions and energy with age.
> It's not true of everyone I suppose, but aging does have its effects.
> I've noticed in myself and others a tendency to relate more and more
> with the culture of one's past, to forgo new initiatives in lieu of
> older comforts.
>
> dmh-
I can definitely identify with your remarks above.
I live in a college town, with two college radio stations, and live
music. Occasionally, I absorb some of the music that is popular with
the late teens to early 20 crowd. Admittedly, some of it is pretty
good...particularly what I would term "guitar bands", but there is
always a jarring middle eight or chorus that doesn't seem to go with
the rest of the song...like it was plugged in there just for the sake
of making the song different. Other tunes, though technically
proficient with musicians who know how to play seem to lack
something. I don't know what to call it..."soul" for lack of a better
word. There is no doubt that I like the music from my childhood,
teen, and early adult years better than anything else, and aside from
the marvelous tunes, harmonies, riffs etc., there was a tribal quality
to it all...a "we're all in this together". I mentined in another
thread not too long ago that back in the Sixties, Rock music was Rock
music whether it was The Beatles, Stones, Monkees, Paul Revere and the
Raiders, Dylan, Turtles, Janis Joplin, Hendrix etc. We didn't
"pigeon-hole". I may have liked one artist over another, but I can
remember listening to "Valerie" by the Monkees, and then right after
that listen to "Axis:Bold As Love" by Hendrix and enjoy each one,
without over-evaluating which was better. Sure, I knew Hendrix played
better than Nesmith and Tork, but they were all in the music scene
together. The splintering of genres into sub-genres often is hailed
as a dramatic break-through, and I can understand the logic of that,
but the reality is that the pulse of music has been diminished, the
unity of it all disengaged.
who?
>
> Where did I assert there were bands better than the Beatles? Where?
Why do you take everything as a serious challenge, as if I and others
are trying to harass you? If you don't want to answer the question,
then do not. No hard feelings on my end.
RichL
news:nursie-41122F....@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi...
> marcus recycled past riffs:
>
> poisoned rose:
>>> you're still confident in asserting that the Beatles are *factually*
>>> the greatest band ever by a mile, that all music is going downhill,
>>> that your era had it best, etc. etc.
>
>> thread not too long ago that back in the Sixties, Rock music was Rock
>> music whether it was The Beatles, Stones, Monkees, Paul Revere and the
>> Raiders, Dylan, Turtles, Janis Joplin, Hendrix etc. We didn't
>> "pigeon-hole". I may have liked one artist over another, but I can
>> remember listening to "Valerie" by the Monkees, and then right after
>> that listen to "Axis:Bold As Love" by Hendrix and enjoy each one,
>> without over-evaluating which was better. Sure, I knew Hendrix played
>> better than Nesmith and Tork, but they were all in the music scene
>> together. The splintering of genres into sub-genres often is hailed
>> as a dramatic break-through, and I can understand the logic of that,
>> but the reality is that the pulse of music has been diminished, the
>> unity of it all disengaged.
>
Is there anything he wrote that isn't true?
RichL
> I just don't know how to talk dumb enough so you can understand me.
There he goes again. Insulting response, not merited by the post he's
responding to. I wonder why HE thinks he should get a free pass on this
newsgroup?
marcus
Is there anything he wrote that isn't true
Why would you question an answer which he never claimed to have an
answer
for? ;-)
who?
That doesn't surprise me.
>
> Why would I answer a question which I never claimed to have an answer
> for?
Do I have to re-print your post to Marcus?
who?
> marcus recycled past riffs:
>
> poisoned rose:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> you're still confident in asserting that the Beatles are *factually*
> >> the greatest band ever by a mile, that all music is going downhill,
> >> that your era had it best, etc. etc.
> > thread not too long ago that back in the Sixties, Rock music was Rock
> > music whether it was The Beatles, Stones, Monkees, Paul Revere and the
> > Raiders, Dylan, Turtles, Janis Joplin, Hendrix etc. We didn't
> > "pigeon-hole". I may have liked one artist over another, but I can
> > remember listening to "Valerie" by the Monkees, and then right after
> > that listen to "Axis:Bold As Love" by Hendrix and enjoy each one,
> > without over-evaluating which was better. Sure, I knew Hendrix played
> > better than Nesmith and Tork, but they were all in the music scene
> > together. The splintering of genres into sub-genres often is hailed
> > as a dramatic break-through, and I can understand the logic of that,
> > but the reality is that the pulse of music has been diminished, the
> > unity of it all disengaged.
>
and why do you care what Marcus says, once again?
Oh, I know. He holds power over your every thought.
who?
One day he'll learn that people will be nice to him
if he isn't so rude to people.
who?
> show what an admirable role model of Usenet nonchalance you are.
>
> > > Why would I answer a question which I never claimed to have an answer
> > > for?
>
> > Do I have to re-print your post to Marcus?
>
> Ramble all night, but you're never going to transform "It is opinion,
> rather than fact, to say the Beatles were the greatest band ever" into
> an assertive claim that other bands were factually better.
>
> You really can't understand the difference?
who?
> show what an admirable role model of Usenet nonchalance you are.
>
> > > Why would I answer a question which I never claimed to have an answer
> > > for?
>
> > Do I have to re-print your post to Marcus?
>
> Do what you like. I can't help if you can't understand what you read.
> Ramble all night, but you're never going to transform "It is opinion,
> rather than fact, to say the Beatles were the greatest band ever" into
> an assertive claim that other bands were factually better.
>
> You really can't understand the difference?
You know Eric....whatever. I wasn't chasing you around.
I'm sorry I spoke to you. I won't anymore.
Eric Ramon
> steering away from content into those "who responded to who/"who's upset
> or not upset"-type meta-issues?
>
> If someone said "Strawberry Fields Forever" was undeniably the greatest
> song ever written, and I scolded him for stating an opinion as a fact,
> would you really demand to know the superior songs I had in mind? I
> guess you would. <sigh>
>
> You won't answer this post in a logical way either. :(
that's interesting. So your point would be the word "undeniably". To
which I'd agree. That can't possibly be right because someone,
somewhere will deny it and poof! there goes that argument!
The Beatles are my favorite group but someone else might like Benny
Goodman or Muse. Or 3Oh!3 for some reason or another. And that, by
definition, means it IS deniable that the Beatles are the greatest
group ever.
The Nice Mean Man
>
> - Show quoted text -
She's a fucking PUSSY. She has no mind of her own. None that she's
willing to discuss, anyway....
The Nice Mean Man
Well, I guess YOU told HIM.
The Nice Mean Man
The Nice Mean Man
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good for U. Someone finally got it......
The Nice Mean Man
> Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > that's interesting. So your point would be the word "undeniably". To
> > which I'd agree. That can't possibly be right because someone,
> > somewhere will deny it and poof! there goes that argument!
>
> > The Beatles are my favorite group but someone else might like Benny
> > Goodman or Muse. Or 3Oh!3 for some reason or another. And that, by
> > definition, means it IS deniable that the Beatles are the greatest
> > group ever.
>
> ever as if this were absolute "fact," you might object to that claim on
> principle even though they are your own #1 favorite. You wouldn't have
> to be a Benny Goodman fanatic.
But they need be more specific.... Jazz vs. Rock. Big-time Swing
jazz... Where are you coming from here.....
RichL
news:nursie-B0872C....@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi...
> Hero of the Feeble wrote:
>
>> > I just don't know how to talk dumb enough so you can understand me.
>>
>> There he goes again. Insulting response, not merited by the post he's
>> responding to. I wonder why HE thinks he should get a free pass on this
>> newsgroup?
>
> answer, the FIRST time he asked it.
He didn't "nag" you. He asked politely.
Maybe politely explaining why the questions made no sense to you would have
helped. Just a thought.
The Nice Mean Man
> On May 26, 8:41 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Pertaining to music:
>
> > I just don't have the time, or the wherewithal to keep myself
> > constantly informed of every new musical avenue that pops up every few
> > years...and ya know what, it doesn't bother me in the least...cause I
> > know what I like, and I like what I know, and I don't think there is
> > anything wrong with that.
>
> > Do you?
>
> Only if you have an attitude about it.
>
> So you grew up and got a life, great, most people do. I'm "retired" as
> well though my years started approximately when yours ended with a bit
> of overlap. I lasted until about the late 90s/early 2000s, though I
> had begun the process of transferring the majority of my creative
> energies to areas with a slightly longer shelf life a few years
> earlier.
>
> The idea of living in Los Angeles or trying to stay involved in the
> scene as I got older frankly HORRIFIED me. :-) I don't know...I
> remember looking at pics of Madonna getting married to Guy Ritchie and
> she looked like a painted cadaver, a tragic example of the
> stereotypical "Show People" that can't let it go, gasping their last
> and dying of consumption clutching at a pot of rouge. (And she's
> Madonna!) I was planning my exit strategy from quite a young age.
>
> But no matter. Perhaps because my main bunch were outside of the
> mainstream for so long before they went above ground, I am very aware
> that no matter what shows on the surface (American Idol, etc) at any
> given time, there are hidden alcoves with juices percolating that I
> simply don't have access to anymore.
>
> And I keep my distances from the kiddies. They can like whatever they
> like with absolutely no input from me. I will admit to once pushing
> Carissa Moore (teen phenom surfer) vids on the little dears, but
> that's as far as it goes. It was great fun to explain to them that
> without gross old skeeve Britney Spears there would have been no
> Miley. (I did like "Irvine" by Kelly Clarkson.)
>
> I do get very very bored with the stuff I already have, but
> participation was always more than listening for me, so I'm never
> going to be as passionate about it again. It wasn't enough to retro
> into Led Zeppelin in the early 90s, for example, I had to take a road
> trip to the four corners states, wear green velvet, do acid, start
> planning the trip to Africa, fall in love...until the next phase
> overtook me. It wasn't just listening, it was a kind of archetypal
> tourism of the mind.
>
> It's that aspect that isn't open to me anymore really, except on the
> most marginal levels - not to mention quitting recreational drugs at
> age 25/6.
>
> With a little bit of effort, I find that I still have somewhat of a
> nose - though less tied to edge than before. I come across stuff I
> like in circuitous and odd ways. Instead of Pandora, I go the personal
> associative route. For example, a writer I know tweeted a link to
> Shiina Ringo (who is actually from the tail end of "my era" but I had
> never heard of her. )
>
> Someone else wrote a comment on youtube that made me laugh. I looked
> at their favorites and found the comedian Dylan Moran. I like almost
> every bit of light poppy music that ppl synch to Carissa Moore's surf
> vids....including some of Jack Johnson's charming little ditties.
>
> And the oddest of all was the route to Rising Appalachia. I was
> researching other activities to do on a proposed trip to Monticello
> and found The Crooked Road, Viriginia's Heritage Music Trail.
> (http://www.thecrookedroad.org/) I found R.I.S.E. off of that.
>
> Even in the early Hotline and Limewire days one of my favorite avenues
> was to search out some obscure favorite not available on MP3 for any
> amount of $, and then search that person's server to see what else
> they had. Loved that.
>
> IOW, if I am really in very DIRE need of something new, I just put the
> vibes out there and start following my nose like a pig rooting for a
> truffle until I find something that eases the pain of my appetites
> <g>. I was never terribly methodical about it, and it usually doesn't
> last very long. That's how I tell the future "classics" from the
> others, my love affair with them lasts a LONG time. I keep going back
> to the well. At the moment the Beatles/Lennon has run dry for me once
> again.
>
> Pandora I avoid. I just don't find it enjoyable for some reason. I had
> high hopes and tried it a few times, but it just didn't go anywhere
> for me.
Twenty minutes of bullshit to express a second's worth of disjointed
thought.... Typical manic depressive...
The Nice Mean Man
> The Nice Mean Man <hitherandyon...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > that's interesting. So your point would be the word "undeniably". To
> > > > which I'd agree. That can't possibly be right because someone,
> > > > somewhere will deny it and poof! there goes that argument!
>
> > > > The Beatles are my favorite group but someone else might like Benny
> > > > Goodman or Muse. Or 3Oh!3 for some reason or another. And that, by
> > > > definition, means it IS deniable that the Beatles are the greatest
> > > > group ever.
>
> > > Of course. So, if you saw someone proclaim the Beatles were the greatest
> > > ever as if this were absolute "fact," you might object to that claim on
> > > principle even though they are your own #1 favorite. You wouldn't have
> > > to be a Benny Goodman fanatic.
>
> > But they need be more specific.... Jazz vs. Rock. Big-time Swing
> > jazz... Where are you coming from here.....
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. It was YOU that missed the point. In its totality...
Dale Houstman
>
> I don't think what we're saying is that different from each other,
> Dale. There's a laziness that sets in with regard to this, with age.
> In my case it's true and not true: in just recent years, the last five
> to ten maybe, I have had a resurgence in my drive to at least expose
> myself and listen to lots of new-to-me (some of it actually perfectly
> old, as other posters have mentioned) music - I think because in the
> digital age it's actually easier than ever to find and hear stuff that
> you didn't know but that you'll like - thru venues like Pandora/
> Slacker and satellite radio - which play to niches and serve up non-
> mainstream material based on your specific and tastes and preferences
> if you let them. (In the old days, if it wasn't in the "mainstream"
> you had to pretty much buy it or have friends who owned it, in order
> to explore and hear other stuff - seems to me that's not the case now
> - with minimal effort, and without even knowing exactly what it is
> you're looking for - you can find and hear so much of what's out
> there, for free.)
This is good, and not good. I've noticed that the mere proliferation and
quantity of access to something tends to diminish each individual
"event's" importance. There's a certain dilution effect with
over-saturation. When it was relatively difficult to get music, each
occasion was that much more distinctive. Personally, I think the nation
(the world) is drowning in entertainment and information. I pretty much
have every bit of music I want to or ever could listen to at easy
access, but I recall being much more excited when one had to think
carefully about what one wished to purchase. But that's the way it is.
> It's as if now that I approach the north side of
> middle-age, I have a sense of having limited time left and am less
> inclined to spend it listening to stuff I have heard millions of times
> already, and would rather try to check out the rest of what's out
> there for me.
I do both, but I must admit I would rather listen to what I know pleases
me. On three mp3 CDs I have burned most of the songs that move me to a
sympathetic passion, or which instantly bring a smile to my face, or
prompt intense emotions of various sorts. Probably a sign my nervous
system is folding up its tents?!
On the other hand, my scope of my music appreciation
> and exposure has gotten wider but not deeper - in that as I expose
> myself to and explore these varoius new things, I generally don't have
> the commitment that I did when I was younger to listen to them
> multiple times - to as you say "absorb" them and drink more deeply in
> their pleasures - I'm happy to just listen to a whole bunch of
> different stuff, just once or twice. A track or two from new or new-
> to-me artists without needing to go listen to the whole album.
This is partly the change in the "delivery system" I imagine. The album
was once the supreme "contextualization" of a musical experience. Now it
is the downloadable song. This is what it is, but - as with most
technological/cultural shifts, something is lost with the change.
>
> True, taking advantage of this wealth of available and easily-
> discovered music does take the willingness to learn how to use the new
> tools I mentioned, but it's not that much of a hurdle.
>
There are days when everything seems like too much of a hurdle.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> On May 28, 5:39 pm, poisoned rose<nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>> "who?"<yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> despite realizing you're decades out of the loop on the music scene,
>>>> you're still confident in asserting that the Beatles are *factually* the
>>>> greatest band ever by a mile, that all music is going downhill, that
>>>> current era has.
>>
>>> I'm not trying to pick a fight, Eric, but I have to ask these
>>> questions:
>>
>>> 1. How much current music would Marcus have to listen
>>> to...to determine what bands aren't better than the
>>> Beatles?
>>
>>> 2. What bands do you think he should listen to, that
>>> would change his mind that the Beatles aren't the
>>> best band? Thanks.
>>
>> You completely missed the point. It's not a question of whether the
>> Beatles are the best ever or not. It's a question of being goofily
>> certain this is a "fact," when it can only be an opinion.
>
> I didn't miss that Eric, and of course the Beatles being the
> best band is just an opinion. Nothing more.
>
> On top of
>> that, it's about being so certain even when he has a pretty limited
>> exposure to the competition, and a severe bias toward music of a certain
>> era.
>
> But you haven't answered my two questions.
Because he thinks they're irrelevant and somewhat puerile. So do I...
>
>
> Please let him be so certain, and please provide the names
> of bands that you believe that would be the best bands,
> other than the Beatles. Thank you.
>
Really - who cares who is better than whom? If one listens to music
hoping to assign some sort of aesthetic hierarchy, when such a question
becomes an important part of the experience, what pleasure could
ultimately be sustained? The Beatles are probably a better band than a
lot of bands IO listen to, and probably a worse band than a lot of other
bands I listen to, but I take each listening as an individual event.
dmh
dmh
RichL
news:nursie-08E477....@62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi...
> "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe politely explaining why the questions made no sense to you would
>> have
>> helped. Just a thought.
>
>
> "You completely missed the point. It's not a question of whether the
> Beatles are the best ever or not. It's a question of being goofily
> that, it's about being so certain even when [Marcus] has a pretty
> limited exposure to the competition, and a severe bias toward music of a
> certain era."
Maybe the problem is that you and I have different definitions of
"politely". Further, I don't think I'd be fairly accused of giving Jeff a
free pass in saying that he may have perceived the main point of the above
as an opportunity to take yet another swipe at Marcus rather than address
the points he was trying to raise.
>
> Naturally, Jeff responded by again pressing the question of whether the
> Beatles are the best ever or not.
That's not what his question was. It seems that the issue that he was
trying to raise went over your head as much as your response went over his.
Let's revisit:
Jeff wrote:
> 1. How much current music would Marcus have to listen
> to...to determine what bands aren't better than the
> Beatles?
>
> 2. What bands do you think he should listen to, that
> would change his mind that the Beatles aren't the
> best band? Thanks.
He's clearly talking about Marcus's view that the Beatles are the "best
band", not his own, despite your insinuations to the contrary. And here's
what I believe he's trying to ask (rephrasing in my own words):
"How much exposure to modern music do you believe is necessary to fairly
place the Beatles within the context of musical history including the
present era? And what modern acts do you think are most appropriate
comparisons?"
I think they're reasonable questions to ask, although my own view is that
the entire "best band" topic, especially in the context of comparing acts
across different eras, is a meaningless one. Each era has its
well-recognized "cream of the crop", although I shun ranking them, since so
many of the factors that enter into such rankings are matters of individual
perception, and we all weigh these factors differently. I also abhor the
"best band EVER" categorization because often the implication is that, once
I have everything recorded by the best band EVER (whoever that is), there's
no need for me to listen to anything else.
The argument in favor of engaging oneself in modern music is decidedly NOT
to attempt to find a band that's "better than the Beatles". Better in what
way? The best music in any given era tends to incorporate the best
influences from all previous eras; it also contains novelties that weren't
present in ANY previous eras. How is it possible or fair to compare such
acts in the modern era to the Beatles? Apples and oranges...
Anyway, that's how I would have responded to Jeff.
globular
> On 28 mayo, 13:46, globular<s...@location.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Well who wants to listen to all that modern music after 1900 anyway,
>> Schoenberg etc.? And that non-scale they used, maybe for disciplining
>> Germans.
>
> I see your point, but there is very good music way past 1850. I think
> good music has no time... in other words: there's always been and
> there always will be good music, if you define good music (a relative
> concept) as I do: the music I want to hear again, more than once in my
> life...
> Having said that, I guess I'll have no time in this life to hear all
> the music I'd like to hear
I think there's eternal phases of things being new and developing, and
then of people being self-conscious to appear to progress with the
audience to match. And this is another case of it.
I would have people ask themselves what they prefer of these phases in
popular culture. Either they have to find the quality music themselves,
or they wait to get told by their peers and the media.
RichL
> Sixty-eight lines from Escalator Rich that time, again taking it upon
> himself to lengthily pick up someone else's dead quarrel.
Followed by a post that's completely nonresponsive to constructive points
raised.
How on earth my post is interpreted by Mr. Nutty as quarreling when the
point of view expressed is quite similar to his own is beyond me. The only
point, which he dodges as usual, is how to express that viewpoint while not
demeaning the person to whom he's responding.
Truth be told, I probably let 95% of PR's incendiary, insulting garbage go
unanswered, yet most of the folks on this newsgroup who are equally
irritated by it don't respond to it at all.
And he thinks *Jeff* is the one who's getting a free pass on this newsgroup?
Astounding!
marcus
Rich, give up...you might as well be talking to your hand (and most
likely getting back a more intelligent response if you did). What you
are dealing with is a 45 old man, living in Southern CA, pathetically
trying to keep his youth by running with the kiddies. It will get old
fast, and so will he.
marcus
> On May 26, 8:41 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Pertaining to music:
>
> > I just don't have the time, or the wherewithal to keep myself
> > constantly informed of every new musical avenue that pops up every few
> > years...and ya know what, it doesn't bother me in the least...cause I
> > know what I like, and I like what I know, and I don't think there is
> > anything wrong with that.
>
> > Do you?
>
> Only if you have an attitude about it.
>
> So you grew up and got a life, great, most people do. I'm "retired" as
> well though my years started approximately when yours ended with a bit
> of overlap. I lasted until about the late 90s/early 2000s, though I
> had begun the process of transferring the majority of my creative
> energies to areas with a slightly longer shelf life a few years
> earlier.
>
> The idea of living in Los Angeles or trying to stay involved in the
> scene as I got older frankly HORRIFIED me. :-) I don't know...I
> remember looking at pics of Madonna getting married to Guy Ritchie and
> she looked like a painted cadaver, a tragic example of the
> stereotypical "Show People" that can't let it go, gasping their last
> and dying of consumption clutching at a pot of rouge. (And she's
> Madonna!) I was planning my exit strategy from quite a young age.
>
I do marvel at how people of a certain age still possess the time,
wherewithal, and inclination to pursue new music done by artists half
their age, or more. It's just something I'm not prepared to do, or
have a desire to do. I give them credit when their motivations are
within being true to themselves.
However, what I find pathetic are those who do so just to show "how
cool" they are, in some kind of attempt to deny or downplay that they
are indeed aging. It reminds me of how older folks would adopt Nehru
jackets, and 60s slang back in the day to try and show their kids how
hip they were, when in actuality the kids were snickering behind their
backs at such lame and feeble attempts.
I, too, find lists of "the best band ever", or the "best 500 songs of
all time" to be annoying. I think they have some value in that they
often cross over to songs that are recognized as such by many people,
but in the end it is an individual choice.
What I find amusing in this thread is the response to me, or anyone
else, stating that The Beatles are/were the best band of all time as
something that needs a response, a laundry list of "facts" to "support
the case" because it really is opinion, and not fact. Well, Jesus!!!,
of course it is my opinion. Does one have to use a disclaimer before
every utterance in a newsgroup discussion with, "The following is my
opinion, not fact, please do not expect footnotes". Every time I read
anything by anyone, I assume it is their opinion...not a fact that
they are throwing out for debate, as if we are all in competition to
show each other up.
So, let me state this, so some of the sterile personalities reading
this have no doubts, what I am about to say is my opinion (you can
agree with it, or not, I don't really give a crap), The Beatles were
the greatest band of all time, nothing I've heard before or since they
broke up has convinced me otherwise, and never will. The Sixties were
the greatest era to grow up in...no decade in my lifetime, thus far,
comes close to being as great (except the 1990s were pretty damn good,
a wonderful decade, whereas the 21st Century so far has been a vast
disappointment). I was spoiled by greatness...once you go to the
moon, can any other trip be as good?
I know what I like, I like what I know...and that's where it's at, man.
Jales
> Of course. So, if you saw someone proclaim the Beatles were the greatest
> ever as if this were absolute "fact," you might object to that claim on
> principle even though they are your own #1 favorite. You wouldn't have
> to be a Benny Goodman fanatic.
"Greatest" is a subjective concept as well as "best", "worst", etc...
I'd simply say The Beatles were the most influential band ever. They
were/are the most popular band too, and also the most covered
who?
> On May 27, 7:54 pm, poisoned rose <nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > marcus rationalized:
>
> > > I just don't have the time, or the wherewithal to keep myself
> > > constantly informed of every new musical avenue that pops up every few
> > > years...and ya know what, it doesn't bother me in the least...cause I
> > > know what I like, and I like what I know, and I don't think there is
> > > anything wrong with that.
>
> > > Do you?
>
> > Beatles, politics, '60s culture and endless event anniversaries, and
> > compose lengthy, indulgent essays on the same. Don't give yourself the
> > excuse that it's purely a matter of time.
>
> > This is the heart of your post:
>
> > "I still don't have the time, inclination, or passion to involve myself
> > in 'newer' music."
>
> > Yes. You have lost your inclination and passion.
>
> > What's wrong with "I know what I like, and I like what I know" is that,
> > despite realizing you're decades out of the loop on the music scene,
> > you're still confident in asserting that the Beatles are *factually* the
> > greatest band ever by a mile, that all music is going downhill, that
> > your era had it best, etc. etc. When you don't even know what the
> > current era has.
>
> I'm not trying to pick a fight, Eric, but I have to ask these
> questions:
I take it that Marcus's "opinion" is that the Beatles
were the best band ever.
who?
> "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > What's wrong with "I know what I like, and I like what I know" is that,
> > > despite realizing you're decades out of the loop on the music scene,
> > > you're still confident in asserting that the Beatles are *factually* the
> > > greatest band ever by a mile, that all music is going downhill, that
> > > your era had it best, etc. etc. When you don't even know what the
> > > current era has.
>
> > I'm not trying to pick a fight, Eric, but I have to ask these
> > questions:
>
> > to...to determine what bands aren't better than the
> > Beatles?
>
> > 2. What bands do you think he should listen to, that
> > would change his mind that the Beatles aren't the
> > best band? Thanks.
>
You made your point with Marcus. I'm asking you two
questions based upon what you wrote.
It's not a question of whether the
> Beatles are the best ever or not. It's a question of being goofily
> certain this is a "fact," when it can only be an opinion.
I don't personally care. That's between you and Marcus.
On top of
> that, it's about being so certain even when he has a pretty limited
> exposure to the competition, and a severe bias toward music of a certain
> era.
I didn't ask you two questions to hear from you about any
of this. Whatever.
topaz
>
> > > of bands that you believe that would be the best bands,
> > > other than the Beatles. Thank you.
>
>
>
> Why do you take everything as a serious challenge, as if I and others
> are trying to harass you? If you don't want to answer the question,
> then do not. No hard feelings on my end.
Jeff , your question above
"Why do you take everything as a serious challenge, as if I and
others
are trying to harass you?" is perfect just perfect. It is a one
sentence summary of Mr Rose's behavior time and again. I think Mr
Rose has some innate need to attack others here, that overrides the
usual desire for compassionate conversation .
topaz
> marcus recycled past riffs:
>
> poisoned rose:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> you're still confident in asserting that the Beatles are *factually*
> >> the greatest band ever by a mile, that all music is going downhill,
> >> that your era had it best, etc. etc.
> > thread not too long ago that back in the Sixties, Rock music was Rock
> > music whether it was The Beatles, Stones, Monkees, Paul Revere and the
> > Raiders, Dylan, Turtles, Janis Joplin, Hendrix etc. We didn't
> > "pigeon-hole". I may have liked one artist over another, but I can
> > remember listening to "Valerie" by the Monkees, and then right after
> > that listen to "Axis:Bold As Love" by Hendrix and enjoy each one,
> > without over-evaluating which was better. Sure, I knew Hendrix played
> > better than Nesmith and Tork, but they were all in the music scene
> > together. The splintering of genres into sub-genres often is hailed
> > as a dramatic break-through, and I can understand the logic of that,
> > but the reality is that the pulse of music has been diminished, the
> > unity of it all disengaged.
>
> And back to wallowing in rose-colored nostalgia once again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You just insulted two other posters here with two posts in a row. Now
why is that necessary? Do you ever realize that your need to feel
superior by tearing others down is one of the most predictable
phenonmenon here, perhaps more predictable that the sun rising?
(Notice how I am jumping into the fray and I predict that I will soon
be put down in some way by the talented Mr Rose.....) Oh what insult
will be used this time? Sock puppet? Dishonest? Imbecile? Ninny?
The person-who-has-too many-spaces-in-her-posts? :)
topaz
Rich I agree with you on this one. I am reading this thread and it is
amazing how much quarrelling is going on over what? We have an oil
spill in the gulf that may destroy the ecosystem of the area for
decades, 2 wars, an unemployment rate that is crippling so many
people, and Abe announced that his brother died suddenly a few days
ago. And Mr Rose is making a fuss over what?
RichL
> Heeeeero of the Feeble <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Sixty-eight lines from Escalator Rich that time, again taking it upon
>> > himself to lengthily pick up someone else's dead quarrel.
>>
>> Followed by a post that's completely nonresponsive to constructive points
>> raised.
>>
>> How on earth my post is interpreted by Mr. Nutty as quarreling when the
>> point of view expressed is quite similar to his own is beyond me. The
>> only
>> point, which he dodges as usual, is how to express that viewpoint while
>> not
>> demeaning the person to whom he's responding.
>
> patiently and painstakingly handhold, nurse, humor and overexplain all
> my points to Jeff, and coddle him like a retarded invalid as everyone
> else does.
Above all else, you want people on this newsgroup to perceive you as an
intelligent person. As such, don't you think there's some happy medium
between the extreme you posit above and bursting out into a fit of insults
when someone doesn't grasp what you're getting at the first time around?
You devote a significant amount of time (or so I gather) to music criticism.
As such, you're a specialist. The rest of us aren't. Imagine if I took
your approach in attempting to explain physics to non-specialists! There
ARE ways to explain things that don't talk down to people.
>
> As for you straining to embellish Jeff's questions into your own
> versions which didn't come off as clueless, that was just plain
> dishonest.
Your problem is that you don't attempt to get inside other peoples' heads,
you simply assume either that people think the way you do or that they're
idiots. Yet another black/white overgeneralization. I've communicated
enough with Jeff that I've got a feel for where he's coming from, so
although I can't *swear* that my restatement is what Jeff really meant, I
have a pretty good idea.
topaz
> marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
>
> Here we go again with one of your standard, pat soundbites. The tone of
> your statement presents the "greatness" as a fact, where the only
> subjective component is how you *reacted* to that greatness.
You are now analyzing Marcus' TONE regarding this issue of "greatness"
being opinion vs fact. You seem to have a need to be "right" at all
costs. Perhaps you can use some of that intensity towards solving
some of the world's more pressing issues.
Mack A. Damia
Now that you mention it, you do have a problem with focusing.
who?
> "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > What's wrong with "I know what I like, and I like what I know" is that,
> > > > > despite realizing you're decades out of the loop on the music scene,
> > > > > you're still confident in asserting that the Beatles are *factually* the
> > > > > greatest band ever by a mile, that all music is going downhill, that
> > > > > your era had it best, etc. etc. When you don't even know what the
> > > > > current era has.
>
> > > > I'm not trying to pick a fight, Eric, but I have to ask these
> > > > questions:
>
> > > > 1. How much current music would Marcus have to listen
> > > > to...to determine what bands aren't better than the
> > > > Beatles?
>
> > > > 2. What bands do you think he should listen to, that
> > > > would change his mind that the Beatles aren't the
> > > > best band? Thanks.
>
> > > You completely missed the point.
>
> > You made your point with Marcus. I'm asking you two
> > questions based upon what you wrote.
>
> and continue failing to process data on the most basic level.
You have your issues with Marcus that do not concern me.
I process data just fine. Instead of willing to answer my
two questions, you want to draw me into a conflict
to put Marcus down...and I am unwilling to participate,
cause I don't give a damn whether Marcus is saying
the Beatles are the greatest band ever, whether it's
his opinion you think is stated that way, or whether
you believe he is stating it as a fact.
>
> 1. You continue to miss the point. I do not know why you keep nagging
> (yes, nagging) me with questions about how to "know" a band is better or
> worse than the Beatles, when my simple (?!?!) point was just that you
> can not "know" such things as facts but can only hold opinions about
> them. Marcus does not present such views as opinions.
You continue to miss the point that I don't give a damn what your
opinion of Marcus is.
>
> 2. Why do you ask a question based on the assumption that Marcus *could*
> find bands he likes more than the Beatles?
Because of what you wrote, saying he isn't familiar with today's
music.
I seriously doubt he *could*
> find a band to change his mind, given how hardened his beliefs are.
Well, give him the names of bands that you think he would like
as the greatest band band ever, besides the Beatles. You're
the one who was saying this.
> Again, the point is that this is a subjective viewpoint rather than
> "knowledge" of a "fact."
Again, that's between you and Marcus.
> You are completely unable to understand the point is that it's an issue
> of subjective opinion rather than "knowing" one band is better or not.
> Why can't you just *get* this?
Why can't you just answer my 2 questions? I know cause I put
you in a position where you'll feel like a fool for answering
correctly. It's okay though. Life goes on afterwards. You'll
be okay.
marcus
>> You devote a significant amount of time (or so I gather) to music criticism.
> As such, you're a specialist. The rest of us aren't. Imagine if I took
> your approach in attempting to explain physics to non-specialists! There
> ARE ways to explain things that don't talk down to people.
>
>
> Your problem is that you don't attempt to get inside other peoples' heads,
> you simply assume either that people think the way you do or that they're
> idiots.
Rich, please understand that I am not trying to draw you into any
"support" of what I'm saying, and I do not consider you a "co-
dependent sidekick", but your two statements above are the most spot-
on assessment of the poster involved that I have ever read in over ten
years of dealing with that pompous arrogant son of a bitch.
who?
He'll always remain that way, Marcus, but you should feel great
that he cares so much of what you say. :-)
topaz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Does anyone know how Abe is doing?
Mack A. Damia
Abe is grieving. His brother died.
He told the group that he would not be posting for a while.
And you are proudly displaying your dysfunction.
You ought to be embarrassed if you have a conscience.
who?
I have no idea. I care but we don't speak to each other
except for in this group.
TheWalrusWasDanny
> I do marvel at how people of a certain age still possess the time,
> wherewithal, and inclination to pursue new music done by artists half
> their age, or more. It's just something I'm not prepared to do, or
> have a desire to do.
Bit weird Marcus..I mean the Beatles were themselves half your age
when they were making Sgt Peps...life still goes on..these youngsters
have a talent that shouldn't be ignored..I think you're being ageist.
Embrace all music it's a wonder to behold..granted I can't dig Rap
music (if we can describe it as that - I fucking detest rap) but all
the other stuff is dead interesting regardless of the age of the
performers...what are we supposed to do? Keep listening to "Hits of
the Blitz" by Vera Lynn?
Danny
TheWalrusWasDanny
> I wonder if, even if it's too "controversial" to say so out loud, RMBers
> do privately realize how pathologically Marcus reduces almost ANY issue
> to a function of age, and some bitter gripe he has between his age group
> and some other age group. I mean, it is *seriously* obsessive.
Agreed.
Marcus could do with opening up a bit.
Danny
TheWalrusWasDanny
> there be ANYONE here intellectually dishonest enough to deny this
> all-pervasive obsession?
I can observe Marcus being a bit like that..but I wouldn't put it so
fucking nasty as you Guru. Like this:
>
> He's so completely pigheaded
Loads of twatty insults..I mean you can yer point across to Marcus
without being such a cunt about it.
Danny
TheWalrusWasDanny
I think deep down we know what Guru is really upset about..clue : 2
inches..it's a shame but he has to live with it..let's be
compassionate. :-)
Danny
TheWalrusWasDanny
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hang on she's just asking how Abe is doing through concern..don't diss
her for it. She's just being nice.
Danny
rwalker
wrote:
>Truth be told, I probably let 95% of PR's incendiary, insulting garbage go
>unanswered, yet most of the folks on this newsgroup who are equally
>irritated by it don't respond to it at all.
I just keep him permanently kill filed.
The Nice Mean Man
> On May 28, 11:28 pm, The Nice Mean Man <hitherandyon...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Twenty minutes of bullshit to express a second's worth of disjointed
> > thought.... Typical manic depressive...
>
> Ape.
Skunk.
The Nice Mean Man
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Above all else, you want people on this newsgroup to perceive you as an
> > intelligent person. As such, don't you think there's some happy medium
> > between the extreme you posit above and bursting out into a fit of insults
> > when someone doesn't grasp what you're getting at the first time around?
>
> > You devote a significant amount of time (or so I gather) to music criticism.
> > As such, you're a specialist. The rest of us aren't. Imagine if I took
> > your approach in attempting to explain physics to non-specialists! There
> > ARE ways to explain things that don't talk down to people.
>
> mind adding some extra "introductory text" or what-not. But there is no
> specialized background knowledge required to read my earlier post, and
> understand that I was neither asserting other bands are better than the
> Beatles nor asserting that Marcus would like other bands better than the
> Beatles if he only heard them. And I've repetitively tried to explain
> this to Jeff in at least three posts by now, and he's still not even
> *one millimeter* closer to understanding. I don't know who could blame
> me for feeling frustrated.
>
> > > As for you straining to embellish Jeff's questions into your own
> > > versions which didn't come off as clueless, that was just plain
> > > dishonest.
>
> > Your problem is that you don't attempt to get inside other peoples' heads,
> > you simply assume either that people think the way you do or that they're
> > idiots. Yet another black/white overgeneralization.
>
> think the way you do or that they're idiots" with an complaint about
> black/white overgeneralizations. CLASSIC.
Fuck you, you silly little asshole...
who?
> Mongo write:
>
> > cause I don't give a damn whether Marcus is saying
> > the Beatles are the greatest band ever, whether it's
> > his opinion you think is stated that way, or whether
> > you believe he is stating it as a fact.
>
> switch to "You're not the boss of me." The eternal Jeff loop.
>
> > > 1. You continue to miss the point. I do not know why you keep nagging
> > > (yes, nagging) me with questions about how to "know" a band is better or
> > > worse than the Beatles, when my simple (?!?!) point was just that you
> > > can not "know" such things as facts but can only hold opinions about
> > > them. Marcus does not present such views as opinions.
>
> > You continue to miss the point that I don't give a damn what your
> > opinion of Marcus is.
>
> Marcus, and ask me questions about Marcus.
>
> > > 2. Why do you ask a question based on the assumption that Marcus *could*
> > > find bands he likes more than the Beatles?
>
> > Because of what you wrote, saying he isn't familiar with today's
> > music.
>
> his favorite band. I object to him making more grand presumptions about
> the Beatles being the obvious factual best, etc. And my initial post
> touched on some other similar matters, but of course you ignored those
> because they didn't trigger your co-dependency "alarm" like a vague
> whiff of someone questioning the Beatles' superiority.
>
> > > I seriously doubt he *could*
> > > find a band to change his mind, given how hardened his beliefs are.
>
> > Well, give him the names of bands that you think he would like
> > as the greatest band band ever, besides the Beatles. You're
> > the one who was saying this.
>
> in the heck do you respond like this?
>
> > > Again, the point is that this is a subjective viewpoint rather than
> > > "knowledge" of a "fact."
>
> > Again, that's between you and Marcus.
>
> issue. Mewling and mewling, pressuring and pressuring, while all the way
> trying to pretend you don't care.
All I know is, you care way too much about what Marcus says.
He wins, not you. Haha.