shut up about the new album
Jeff Cornett
How about waiting til the new album is printed, shrink
wrapped and on the shelves at Wal-mart befroe you
start pulling a 180 on Weezer and saying they've lost
it. Just because Hashpipe might not be the most wonderful
egg to be hatched from Rivers' ass, doesnt mean the whole
album is gonna suck.
There are gonna be other songs. Hashpipe being the first
single just means that some over the hill record exec thought
that it was the most commercially marketable song. Which
means that they think it will be the best song to introduce
Weezer to the 13 year old teeny boppers that havent heard
of them before. The other songs, that might not even be released
as singles, could be the ones that us old school Weezer fans will
like the best.
Also remember (if you are old enough) that the first single from the
Blue Album was the Sweater Song but lots of people didnt take
notice til Buddy Holly came out. And Say it Aint So was the 3rd
single which many consider to be the best. Furthermore, songs like
Only in Dreams and Jonas are classics among Weezer
fans that never had videos.
I think some of you need to turn off your brains for a while and
try and wait until the album comes out. Dont replace that Weezer
poster with a Limp Bizkit yet. Give "#3" a chance.
MrMusto
i am smirking revenge
"Jeff Cornett" <jcor...@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:9agshr$2ka$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
geaek
album #3 is destined to be mighty lame.
--
g e a e k - -
http://www.deadape.com
"Jeff Cornett" <jcor...@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:9agshr$2ka$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
cassette tape
so, el scorcho, the good life, and pink triangle. I am sure the album will
be fine, but unless the rest of the songs are drastically different from the
3 we have heard and the christmas songs it will not be better than pinkerton
or blue and that is just a shame.
Joe O.
Steven S.
thou hard-core weezer fans. i dont know if a single one of you
pessimists can be considered a real fan. you hear 2 songs out of 11 that
will be on the album, determine it garbage, and talk about how much
rivers' songs suck. you dont belong in this newsgroup.
Steven S.
the obvious necessary
h0nd0
Jeff Cornett <jcor...@vt.edu> wrote in message
news:9agshr$2ka$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
Fung Koo
> you are mighty lame. all of you claim yourselfs to be big holier than
> thou hard-core weezer fans. i dont know if a single one of you
> pessimists can be considered a real fan. you hear 2 songs out of 11 that
> will be on the album, determine it garbage, and talk about how much
> rivers' songs suck. you dont belong in this newsgroup.
i wonder why this individual thinks all fans have to be brown nosers? just
because i don't kiss the band's proverbial ass doesn't make me less of a
fan. i should be allowed to have my opinion, and i should be allowed to
criticize. unlike some i generally make constructive criticism. its easy to
be negative, and not everone is up for that.
(i even sent some songwriting tips to karl to give to rivers
- maybe i'm a loser...)
but regardless. its fucking stupid to follow a band and believe, like
samuel seems to, that when one is a fan for a band (yes, the word FOR is
correct, grammar whores) one must uphold everything that band does. thats
called BLIND FAITH.
faith is good, and its something special, but don't be so fucking ignorant
as to believe that all the faithful are right or informed in their faith.
religious people who think God can do no harm are just as blind as a fan
who thinks a band can do no wrong. its about understanding and acceptance.
most people skip the understanding part
that said, i think i'm a bigger fan than any half-wit like you who believes
i have no belonging to this newsgroup. as i said, just because i choose to
be critical and don't kiss ass doesn't make me a non-fan. frankly, people
like you who say who is and isn't a REAL fan are exactly the type of people
this newsgroup needs less of.
remember this - liking something is different from appreciating something.
i like blue a lot. i appreciate pinkerton. i like the new songs. i don't
appreciate them.
therefore, fuck you.
--
doolf sirhc
====-|-====
icq- 3101074 | aim- Fung Koo IM | msn - fun...@hotmail.com
P.S. to samuel - if you read this far, my statement about you is just about
how you seem to portray yourself, maybe not as you are. you might just be
like me and appreciate the new songs more than me. so far you haven't
proven such, but you're pretentious enough you might have a grain of
intellect. grudgingly yours,
(fin)
Marzioli
>two words for you: "hip hip"
>
>album #3 is destined to be mighty lame.
You deserve your misspelled name. That's about one of the coolest songs on
the market, out of all the new and old bands I've been hearing. It ain't
"la la la", or "ooh ooh ooh", or "oh oh oh oh oh oh", or "pick it up pick it
up pick it up," but it's cool in its own right. Lastly, go back to your
N'sync, ya hoser.
-Samuel
Marzioli
>(i even sent some songwriting tips to karl to give to rivers
>- maybe i'm a loser...)
Tempting... But I'll refrain.
Chris
>but regardless. its fucking stupid to follow a band and believe, like
>samuel seems to, that when one is a fan for a band (yes, the word FOR is
>correct, grammar whores) one must uphold everything that band does. thats
>called BLIND FAITH.
Blind faith? I've heard the new songs, young un, and found it to be
amazing. Liking the songs that have been written, played, and heard is
called being a fan. So what's your excuse?
Chris
>that said, i think i'm a bigger fan than any half-wit like you who believes
>i have no belonging to this newsgroup.
You may think you're the queen of England, but facts seem to indicate
otherwise.
Chris
>P.S. to samuel - if you read this far, my statement about you is just about
>how you seem to portray yourself, maybe not as you are. you might just be
>like me and appreciate the new songs more than me.
I think you have fanship confused with blind faith. I like the new stuff
after I heard it. Blind faith fanship would be liking the new stuff before
you heard it. My claim up to this date has been that based on what is
heard, the new album will be amazing. It's a prediction, based on the
sample evidence we have.
-Samuel
Steven S.
constructive criticism isnt "this album is going to suck". that was the
comment of the person who i was directing this to. i never said you
werent having constructive criticism. chill out.
Steven S.
Fung Koo
> you hostility was unprevoked. i wasnt directing my comment towards you.
> constructive criticism isnt "this album is going to suck". that was the
> comment of the person who i was directing this to. i never said you
> werent having constructive criticism. chill out.
>
that wasn't the point i was talking about. i was talking about you judging
the right of a person to be a fan or partake in this newsgroup because they
happen to have an opinion that doesn't agree with the commonality of your
"real" fans.
you might note i did say its easy for people to be negative. and afterall,
this is a newsgroup. not everyone here gives the effort to write freakin
essays, like me. i know i probably write too much, but i'm just trying to
get my point across the way i mean it. hopefully i can avoid incorrect
interpretation. apparently it doesn't work...
note: swearing does not immediately denote hostility. i could've been
swearing for effect :)
--
doolf sirhc
====-|-====
icq- 3101074 | aim- Fung Koo IM | msn - fun...@hotmail.com
"got a picture in my pocket, looks a lot like you.
and everytime that i drop it, looks less and less like you"
- salmonblaster
Fung Koo
> Blind faith? I've heard the new songs, young un, and found it to be
> amazing. Liking the songs that have been written, played, and heard is
> called being a fan. So what's your excuse?
>
> Chris
> >that said, i think i'm a bigger fan than any half-wit like you who believes
> >i have no belonging to this newsgroup.
>
> You may think you're the queen of England, but facts seem to indicate
> otherwise.
>
> Chris
> >P.S. to samuel - if you read this far, my statement about you is just about
> >how you seem to portray yourself, maybe not as you are. you might just be
> >like me and appreciate the new songs more than me.
>
> I think you have fanship confused with blind faith. I like the new stuff
> after I heard it. Blind faith fanship would be liking the new stuff before
> you heard it. My claim up to this date has been that based on what is
> heard, the new album will be amazing. It's a prediction, based on the
> sample evidence we have.
>
> -Samuel
>
faith and fandom essentially wind down to the same thing. you pursue the
trappings of your focus in the face of doubt, and throug hit all you
believe in it. a fan believes that there is something great about the band
they have decided to follow (or bands, whichever).
a blind fan is one who can say with conviction that they believe everything
that bands has done and is doing to be great, because of their blindness.
rarely is there the admission of failure and/or frailty in the product.
having this opinion without a good reason why is not a good thing. a good
reason why is NOT "well, i just like it."
WHY do you just like it? WHY do you "just believe"? if you can't answer
these things about yourself and what you like, you are an automaton. kindly
learn to think, then come talk amongst us edumacated folk.
i take issue with your flippant comment that things indicate that i am not
a fan. ha ha, you are oh so witty... to extrapolate some:
there are fad fans and fans. thats all. a fan appreciates something more
than the fact that what they follow is "cool" for the moment. cool fades
and disappears. i wouldn't be here anymore if i was a fad fan. fad fans can
become fans, and actually follow whatever they're a fan of. is one type
greater than the other? yes, because one is simply a whore to the market of
pop culture, where the other creates for themself a voluntary attachment to
a purpose, cause, or sound they find fulfilling. i guess then you are
either a trendy or truSOULjah.
i would like to know what indicates i am not a fan. i like the music, i
appreciate the music (most of it), i find artistic merit in the band, i
find my time spent thinking about the band fulfilling and worthwhile... if
you're basing your claim on my essay you didn't read, then screw you. if
you understood it was merely a sort of kissing goodbye of the past, you
might see there's a sobering aesthetic to my cynicism.
if not, it doesn't matter anyway. i'm not sure why i'm explainging myself
to you, but i guess i can hope you're not a complete moron.
--
doolf sirhc
====-|-====
icq- 3101074 | aim- Fung Koo IM | msn - fun...@hotmail.com
"got a picture in my pocket, looks a lot like you.
JasonThePodRacer
-Jason The Hoser
May the Force be with you...
marzioli
>>I think you have fanship confused with blind faith. I like the new stuff
>>after I heard it. Blind faith fanship would be liking the new stuff
before
>>you heard it. My claim up to this date has been that based on what is
>>heard, the new album will be amazing. It's a prediction, based on the
>>sample evidence we have.
Chris
>Faith and fandom essentially wind down to the same thing. you pursue the
>trappings of your focus in the face of doubt, and throug hit all you
>believe in it. a fan believes that there is something great about the band
>they have decided to follow (or bands, whichever).
Well, this doesn't seem to be either you or me. For me, I don't have doubt
because I know for a fact the songs are good. This is called empirical
fact, it is a matter of reality that I like this music. I'd prefer to think
of my affirmation of Weezer's new album is the end result of a logical
processes of reasoning. X songs are good, therefore Y songs will probably
be good. Or else I can take this by terms of falsificationism. Each track
I listen to that I like is a test of the worth of the new songs. With each
test passed, the idea that the new album is good is that much more
corroborated. Unfortunately, this isn't faith. One's logic and the other
is a scientific method applied to music appreciation.
Chris
>a blind fan is one who can say with conviction that they believe everything
>that bands has done and is doing to be great, because of their blindness.
>rarely is there the admission of failure and/or frailty in the product.
>having this opinion without a good reason why is not a good thing. a good
>reason why is NOT "well, i just like it."
So long as their inability to express their love for the music in musicians
terms is not a factor. I say "well, I just like it", but that doesn't mean
I'm a blind fan, especially since that phrase is applied to what I have
heard and subsequently liked. I know for a fact a lot of other Weezer fans
are taking my route. Perhaps they're blind faithers, but its likely they're
also not hard core fans. I think the hard core fans have a good idea about
what the new album is going to sound like based on the concerts and the
mp3s. It's tough to have the type of faith you speak of when you have so
much fact.
Chris,
>WHY do you just like it? WHY do you "just believe"? if you can't answer
>these things about yourself and what you like, you are an automaton. kindly
>learn to think, then come talk amongst us edumacated folk.
Personally, I love the melodies. The songs I tend towards are the songs
that have an amazing vocal line, something that gets me to sing, something
that stays in my mind. Island in the Sun is one of those. That's why I get
irritated when people say it sucks. Hip Hip is a perfectly acceptable
exclamation, for a great new Weezer song. I also like cheesy guitar solos
that follow the melody. That's my thang. I like Pat's drums, he always
rocks out. I like the harmonies. They play their instruments very well,
even individually the guitarists aren't Jimmy or Jeff or Alexis. What else
is there? Sure I could create some standard of excellent and demand they
met it, but then how stupid an arse would I be?
Since everyone is giving your standard for music, so will I. Music is to be
enjoyed for what it is. It was created to be what it is, and typically it
was never created to be what you wanted it to be as a fan. If you can't
accept a song or a band for who they are and what they do, then you're
missing out on what it means to appreciate music. Sure, personal taste
comes in the picture. But the sort of "taste" being used here is always of
comparison, always of implementing standards, always of criticism. That's a
sure sign that the music is not being enjoyed or accepted for what it is.
The legends of Blue and Pinkerton are always in the mind, harshly condemning
their new brother, the new creation. How many times does someone have to
say that Pinkerton and Blue are not the new album, so it's pointless to harp
on it? So many times, and to no avail.
Chris
>i take issue with your flippant comment that things indicate that i am not
>a fan. ha ha, you are oh so witty... to extrapolate some:
I was challenging your claim that you were a *better* fan. I think your
criticisms, your skepticism and your pessimism shows that guys like Steven,
even if condemnable on some ground, are bigger fans. If that's your thang,
then fine. I have little to no problem with it. But if you're going to
bitch, then its likely you can't claim "world's greatest fan". It's obvious
your a huge fan, and a hard core fan, as I would define that term. But
you're going to have to show a little more spunk and dedication to gain
"bigger fan than Steven", or whoever. In any case, no one is challenging
your fanhood. I only did that some weeks back to poke fun.
-Samuel
Fung Koo
> Well, this doesn't seem to be either you or me. For me, I don't have doubt
> because I know for a fact the songs are good. This is called empirical
> fact, it is a matter of reality that I like this music. I'd prefer to think
> of my affirmation of Weezer's new album is the end result of a logical
> processes of reasoning. X songs are good, therefore Y songs will probably
> be good. Or else I can take this by terms of falsificationism. Each track
> I listen to that I like is a test of the worth of the new songs. With each
> test passed, the idea that the new album is good is that much more
> corroborated. Unfortunately, this isn't faith. One's logic and the other
> is a scientific method applied to music appreciation.
>
scientific method? you've basically taken two factors and made a decision.
scientific method would include taking a wide variety of factors, which
should at the very least include originality... Your quick lesson in
logically valid argument structure is oh so wonderful. empirically, one
would take as many factors as possible to arrive at one's conclusion.
empircally, one would also allow for the possibility that the final product
will not be good.
> So long as their inability to express their love for the music in musicians
> terms is not a factor. I say "well, I just like it", but that doesn't mean
> I'm a blind fan, especially since that phrase is applied to what I have
> heard and subsequently liked. I know for a fact a lot of other Weezer fans
> are taking my route. Perhaps they're blind faithers, but its likely they're
> also not hard core fans. I think the hard core fans have a good idea about
> what the new album is going to sound like based on the concerts and the
> mp3s. It's tough to have the type of faith you speak of when you have so
> much fact.
if you say "well, i just like it" but you know WHY, then good job. if you
say "i just like it" and thats all there is to your statement, then you're
one of those blind faithers.
> Personally, I love the melodies. The songs I tend towards are the songs
> that have an amazing vocal line, something that gets me to sing, something
> that stays in my mind. Island in the Sun is one of those. That's why I get
> irritated when people say it sucks. Hip Hip is a perfectly acceptable
> exclamation, for a great new Weezer song. I also like cheesy guitar solos
> that follow the melody. That's my thang. I like Pat's drums, he always
> rocks out. I like the harmonies. They play their instruments very well,
> even individually the guitarists aren't Jimmy or Jeff or Alexis. What else
> is there? Sure I could create some standard of excellent and demand they
> met it, but then how stupid an arse would I be?
>
a stupid arse who, like normal people, develops a certain expectation. that
expectation is based on the reasons why you like the music. based on your
criteria, if weezer started playing songs that were all based on blues
standards, you would probably ease away from the band. if they started
generating deeply poetic lyrics, you would have to adjust. and if weezer
started playing songs that had no harmonies, i'm pretty sure you'd change
your tune. (oh, i love the pun!)
i expect development from the band. the level of maturity between pinkerton
and blue is vastly different. i expect more of the same development,
because that is what i appreciate most about the band. not the superficial
layers, like the sound and presentation, but the meaning behind it and the
implications involved.
> Since everyone is giving your standard for music, so will I. Music is to be
> enjoyed for what it is. It was created to be what it is, and typically it
> was never created to be what you wanted it to be as a fan. If you can't
> accept a song or a band for who they are and what they do, then you're
> missing out on what it means to appreciate music. Sure, personal taste
> comes in the picture. But the sort of "taste" being used here is always of
> comparison, always of implementing standards, always of criticism. That's a
> sure sign that the music is not being enjoyed or accepted for what it is.
> The legends of Blue and Pinkerton are always in the mind, harshly condemning
> their new brother, the new creation. How many times does someone have to
> say that Pinkerton and Blue are not the new album, so it's pointless to harp
> on it? So many times, and to no avail.
>
so what about a band like godspeed you black emperor!? are they not music?
they use music as a vehicle to describe their politcal manifesto. the music
is chaotic, deeply layered, sinister at times, hopeful at others. their
music functions as a descriptor of society at large, which they
collectively present as something that is spiraling in chaos with strange
lines of chohesion within, dynamically beautiful and rare but horrible and
atrocious at the same time; all slowly unravelling into absolute anarachy.
by your set of aesthetics, if i'm to appreciate the music for "what it is",
i must accept the meaning behind it as well. in the case of gybe! the music
WAS created for me to hear, so i could understand their viewpoint. if music
was created to be "what it is" then why do people assemble into bands and
perform for others? so other can understand their viewpoint, yes? in that
case, i am required to understand the meaning inherent in the music, yes?
if not, i am simply being ignorant that there was a creative process. music
is not simple "what it is" in the inifinitive. music is crafted and shaped
into definitive statement. if you want to hear a "music" that is simply
"what it is", listen to static. it is what it is every time and different
always.
"But the sort of "taste" being used here is always of comparison, always of
implementing standards, always of criticism. That's a sure sign that the
music is not being enjoyed or accepted for what it is." IF YOU EVER ATTEMPT
TO PREACH PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENTS AGAIN I WILL RIP YOU TO SHIT. How the
hell can you make a statement like that? That is the most ignoant bullshit
I've read on this group in a while. Without criticism how am I to
appreciate the music? Should we all be mindless automatons devoid of
intellect or understanding? Are we supposed to except everything at face
value? What the fuck are you saying!?!?!
How can I enjoy what I don't somehow understand? How do I understand
without comparison? Implementing standards of taste? Or criticising? How DO
I LEARN? Holy shit...
>
> I was challenging your claim that you were a *better* fan. I think your
> criticisms, your skepticism and your pessimism shows that guys like Steven,
> even if condemnable on some ground, are bigger fans. If that's your thang,
> then fine. I have little to no problem with it. But if you're going to
> bitch, then its likely you can't claim "world's greatest fan". It's obvious
> your a huge fan, and a hard core fan, as I would define that term. But
> you're going to have to show a little more spunk and dedication to gain
> "bigger fan than Steven", or whoever. In any case, no one is challenging
> your fanhood. I only did that some weeks back to poke fun.
>
>
>
> -Samuel
>
>
holy crap... and here i thought you were intelligent.
you're practically, though not explicitly, saying that obsession equals
fandom. the greater your obsession and further you take it to the extreme,
the better the fan.
thats just fucking ridiculous. thats called a MENTAL DISORDER.
everyone is a critic. some critics are better than other. if your equative
opinion based on factors X and Y leads you to like what you hear and
anticipate good, then you should be able to accept that for me X is good
but Y is bad, leading to a lower expectation. Your logic explains my point.
I find the new songs lacking, therefore my expectation for the greatness of
the new album is lowered. Its as simple as that. Regardless of how good or
bad the album ends up being, i'm no less of a fan for being a CRITIC.
That would be like saying Roger Ebert isn't a fan of the movies.
Nathan Scott
"Fung Koo" <chris.d...@ns.dot.sympatico.dot.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.15382937f...@news1.ns.sympatico.ca...
> holy crap... and here i thought you were intelligent.
>
> you're practically, though not explicitly, saying that obsession
equals
> fandom. the greater your obsession and further you take it to the
extreme,
> the better the fan.
>
Fan is short for fanatic isn't it?
> That would be like saying Roger Ebert isn't a fan of the movies.
No. Saying that you aren't a fan of music because you don't like new
Weezer songs would be like saying Ebert isn't a fan of the movies.
Ebert is a fan of movies in general, even though there are stinkers
out there. Likewise, we are all music fans, as I would say it's safe
to say we all like the majority of music out there, though there is
plenty of stuff we don't like. Now to be a fan of something specific
such a band, I would say it is necessary that you DO appreciate the
majority of the music by them. That's what being a fan is, LIKING the
music.
Now I'm not accusing Flood of not being a fan. He has said that he
liked the new songs. He's made criticisms, but oh well, whatever, I
have my problems occasionally with the odd bits and pieces. I'm a fan
of plenty of bands who's music I merely "like". But the people who
talk about how crappy the new stuff is, they ain't fans, at least not
big fans. They might have used to have been, but once you start
disliking a band's output, cross your name off the "big fan" list, and
say hello to "casual enjoyment". I've had to do this before (alas,
Tea Party, why have you done me so wrong?) but at least I don't hang
around the band's damn newsgroups and message boards crying like a
fucking 8 year old who's mom won't buy him a PS2 about how the band
"used to be sooooo much better".
That's my problem. Actually, it's not my problem yet. People still
have an open mind somewhat, well not open but optimistic. I guarantee
you though, when the new album comes out, none of the people that disl
ike the songs they've heard so far are going to change their tune, and
this place is going to become crap. I've seen it happen to many times
before. I'm not going to have usenet access by the time May rolls,
and I actually kind of don't think I'll regret it.
I could also rant about how the good majority of these people are the
ones you call "fad fans", only your typical indie anti-fad fad types,
but I'm not really in the mood. The signs are all still there,
however.
My further opinions on fandom:
Fandom has several levels:
Unhealthy fan: The band has done nothing un-deity-like, and never
will, and damnation to anyone who says otherwise. Not a good thing,
but it's unarguable that these people are the "biggest" fans. "Best",
maybe not, but definately "biggest".
Big/Obsessive fan: The band is incredible. The only faults you can
find are mostly pieces that aren't as good as the rest of their
material. You seek out merchandise, rare recordings, and you know way
too much trivia about them. You acknowledge that the band might
eventually put something crap out, but you don't think it's likely any
time soon and haven't seen any evidence so far. My personal examples:
Weezer, Sloan, Limblifter
Regular fan: The band is really good. There is some stuff you don't
like, but not all that much. You know the general history of the
band, probably all the members' names and such, and you probably own
most/all of their major LPs. You trust that future material will be
fairly good, though not necessarily. My personal examples: R.E.M.,
Primus, Belle and Sebastien
Casual fan: You like the band a good bit, and own an album or two.
You haven't felt compelled to hunt down all of their albums, but you
wouldn't mind it if you got them as a gift, and may eventually get
around to getting them yourself. MPE: They Might Be Giants,
Deftones, Blur
Simply liking a band, kinda: You have like, an album by them and
don't dislike it. You aren't really worried about ever getting more
from them. Just a band whom you do not have the urge to murder
everytime you see them. MPE: Sugar Ray, Smash Mouth, Treble Charger
Anyway. This is my contribution to the bloated, verbose quagmire of
AMW. Thank you, good night.
--
Nathan Scott
The smarter man would have used the remote. The smarter man doesn't
have a cat between his legs.
blueguy
> IF YOU EVER ATTEMPT
> TO PREACH PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENTS AGAIN I WILL RIP YOU TO SHIT. How the
> hell can you make a statement like that? That is the most ignoant bullshit
> I've read on this group in a while.
one more outburst like this, and both you boys are going to your rooms.
lets calm down a little bit everyone.
it will be okay.
"this is the story of a girl"
blueguy
>
> Big/Obsessive fan: The band is incredible.
well, according to your standards, thats me...
but, i dont think everyone or everything can be fit into pegs.
but i do notice, that when pressed about information about weezer from
other people, i see the concern they have for me as i talk, wondering
why and how i know so much about a band.
frankly, it scares me sometimes.
personally, i think we do it just to fill up our lives.
(at least with my little obsessions)
not that my life or anyone elses are totally empty and/or meaningless
....but it does. just coming in here...when you get down to it, is a
waste....but here i am....and i have to being doing Something, it might
as well be this.
really the internet has birthed this 'super obsessive fan' into
creation. well, a new level of it, i suppose. before, getting into rare
bootlegs and even good information on a band must have been a bitch and
a half.
"i just want to live until i die"
Fung Koo
> one more outburst like this, and both you boys are going to your rooms.
>
> lets calm down a little bit everyone.
>
> it will be okay.
caps = madness! mwaa ha ha!
it's still a dumb shit statement.
Fung Koo
yeah, fan is short for fanatic. i like your definitions for fandom, however
i have one major point...
the people right now who are disliking the material are seeking it our and
are hearing primary from poor quality sources that require more than
passive interest. they are the big/obsessive fan you describe, and have
come to the conclusion that they don't like what they're hearing.
my only real point is that you don't have to worship everything a band does
to be a fan... even a big crazy unhealthily obsessive fan. maybe that
should be called addiction.... ?
Fung Koo
> well, according to your standards, thats me...
> but, i dont think everyone or everything can be fit into pegs.
> but i do notice, that when pressed about information about weezer from
> other people, i see the concern they have for me as i talk, wondering
> why and how i know so much about a band.
> frankly, it scares me sometimes.
>
> personally, i think we do it just to fill up our lives.
> (at least with my little obsessions)
> not that my life or anyone elses are totally empty and/or meaningless
> ....but it does. just coming in here...when you get down to it, is a
> waste....but here i am....and i have to being doing Something, it might
> as well be this.
>
> really the internet has birthed this 'super obsessive fan' into
> creation. well, a new level of it, i suppose. before, getting into rare
> bootlegs and even good information on a band must have been a bitch and
> a half.
they had like magazine ads and snail mail mailing groups.
valid point though. though posting on this newsgroup is no more irrelvant
and meaningless than engaging in normal vocal conversation. its just a
different medium of discussion. i think its just communication. regardless
of the form, conversation is rewarding. even if we are just trying to find
pretenious ways to tell each other off.
the idea that a newsgroup is something way less than "real" communication
makes me laugh. its like those "i saw it on tv, so its gotta be true,
right?" statements... like tv is deliberately trying to alter your mind and
fill your head with lies. people said the same thing about novels after the
printing press. apparently new uses for technology fills our heads with
lies... tsk tsk.
marzioli
>scientific method? you've basically taken two factors and made a decision.
>scientific method would include taking a wide variety of factors, which
>should at the very least include originality...
Testability and falsifiability. That's the scientific method in a nutshell.
That's what I used to come to a tenative conclusion about the new Weezer
material.
Chris
>Your quick lesson in logically valid argument structure is oh so wonderful.
>empirically, one would take as many factors as possible to arrive at one's
>conclusion. empircally, one would also allow for the possibility that the
>final product will not be good.
All theories are tenative. We do not possess ultimate truth. Naturally
this is especially so for predictions. I can be no more sure of Weezer's
album being great (a prediction based on their previous work) than I can be
of the sun rising tomorrow (a prediction based on previous rising). We
don't disagree on at least that part. However, suggesting I have made a
logical error very well might denote the fact you need to a tad bit more
reading in epistemology and philosophy of science.
<snip>
Chris
>so what about a band like godspeed you black emperor!? are they not music?
> hey use music as a vehicle to describe their politcal manifesto.
That's your thang. Again, this is another of my points. Emotion and
intellectual stimulation in music is subjective. I don't find such
stimulants within that bands work.
Chris,
>"But the sort of "taste" being used here is always of comparison, always of
>implementing standards, always of criticism. That's a sure sign that the
>music is not being enjoyed or accepted for what it is." IF YOU EVER ATTEMPT
>TO PREACH PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENTS AGAIN I WILL RIP YOU TO SHIT.
Bite me.
Chris
>How the hell can you make a statement like that? That is the most ignoant
>bullshit I've read on this group in a while.
Very easily. That's my view of the matter. Music enjoyment is innate. A
mediocre band can acheive an amazing emotional and intellectual statement
without being as good as Jeff Beck on guitar, or Patrick on drums. Skill is
not a necessary condition, rather a sufficient condition.
Chris
>Without criticism how am I to
>appreciate the music? Should we all be mindless automatons devoid of
>intellect or understanding? Are we supposed to except everything at face
>value? What the fuck are you saying!?!?!
If that's your thang, then go for it. I personally disagree with such an
approach. Music appreciation is on an individual basis for me. I don't
like band X because they are closer to some standard Y, I like band X
because they are able to interest me, my mind and my taste.
<snip, ranting and ravings>
lol, I don't think you're one to talk about mental disorders.
-Samuel
marzioli
> caps = madness! mwaa ha ha!
>
> it's still a dumb shit statement.
What a nut. Incidentally, even if its a dumb statement its also a true one.
One of these days when you grow up, learn a thing or two, you might then
understand. As for now, I can't expect you to grasp it.
-Samuel
Fung Koo
> All theories are tenative. We do not possess ultimate truth. Naturally
> this is especially so for predictions. I can be no more sure of Weezer's
> album being great (a prediction based on their previous work) than I can be
> of the sun rising tomorrow (a prediction based on previous rising). We
> don't disagree on at least that part. However, suggesting I have made a
> logical error very well might denote the fact you need to a tad bit more
> reading in epistemology and philosophy of science.
>
nice backpedaling, mr. philosophy.
>
> That's your thang. Again, this is another of my points. Emotion and
> intellectual stimulation in music is subjective. I don't find such
> stimulants within that bands work.
subjective? bollocks to you. if the creator of said art form has an
intended message, that message becomes a part of the work. i wasn't talking
about emotion or stimulation. i'm talking about expression and creativity.
you claim music should be appreciated for what it is. if that is the case,
then you should appreciate all music, then based on your own "likability"
scale, define your preference. you may not find stimulants with the work of
gybe!, but again, thats not the issue. the issue is the music's merit is
not in its desire to provide you with stiumlation. the music is a statement
to be interpreted, much like poetry, essays, and research labs.
this is like the difference between, say, john berger and john grisham or
steven spielberg and jean-luc godard. grisham and spielberg direct your
attention, tell their specific story, leave you little room to play in your
imagination with possibility, relation or context... they merely allow you
to zone out for two hours and take in the images they present. saving
private ryan was a crap movie after the first 20 minutes. it had no merit
or value. everyhting in it was designed to tell you a story. john grisham
writes what are basically formula novels. he tells you the story and you're
left with what? a nice little tale that lends you no cause for thought.
meanwhile, berger writes a novel like G. or Pig Earth, employs various
devices all designed to paint a portrait that you have to contemplate to
understand, and in the end (with a little mental play) you come out with a
little more understanding. godard made films that forced you apart from the
lazy no-brained departing passive viewing of film to make you aware of
certain elements and falsity. without thinking about what you're seeing you
cannot hope to understand whats going on.
this is like gybe! compared to weezer. weezer is basically a pleasing
listen. some people manage to find soemthing more, but to the average
shmuck weezer is just "a call to hedonism" and fun to listen to a bop
around to. gybe! is soemthing that takes intellect to listen to. you can't
just sit there and take it in. it takes soaking.
so back to the point. its not about what you find stimulating. you can't
dismiss music in general as requiring to be taken for "what it is." whether
you listen to aband or not can come down to the appeal of sound. you might
not like the sound of gybe!, but according to you, you have to accept it
for what it is. it is intellectual. if you "just like it" you're insulting
their art.
> Very easily. That's my view of the matter. Music enjoyment is innate. A
> mediocre band can acheive an amazing emotional and intellectual statement
> without being as good as Jeff Beck on guitar, or Patrick on drums. Skill is
> not a necessary condition, rather a sufficient condition.
"music enjoyment is innate."... lol! are you trying to be retarded? its
impossible to avoid music. i can't imagine life without it, but innate?
hardly! how can you argue empiricism and then turn around and make this
claim? "well deal, i did." thats your answer. "thats my view of the
matter." humph... if you're gonna preach about how you've empircally and
deductively concluded that you like product X of music, do the same for
music in general, eh? so innately you should like gybe! then.
> If that's your thang, then go for it. I personally disagree with such an
> approach. Music appreciation is on an individual basis for me. I don't
> like band X because they are closer to some standard Y, I like band X
> because they are able to interest me, my mind and my taste.
if thats MY thang? apparently its yours, not mine! "music enjoyment is
innate" after all... oh, but now its on an individual basis? i thought it
was innate! Sammy, whats up? you're confusing yourself!
i think mr. philosophy needs to study his text book a little harder!
Fung Koo
HAHAHA! you a fonnie mon! you contradict yourself many more times you're
gonna flip yourself inside out and your guts will be outside your tummy.
and no, it wasn't a "true" statement. truth is relative, buddy boy. a
little existentialism should've pointed that out to you.
"But the sort of "taste" being used here is always of comparison, always of
implementing standards, always of criticism. That's a sure sign that the
music is not being enjoyed or accepted for what it is."
i would like you to explain what truth there is in your statement. based on
aesthetics, you have to remove empiricism by degrees to reveal what layers
of truth you are explaining. if the truth you are displaying is that "music
is what it is." then you have just constructed a cyclical argument that
cannot be disproved. existentially music is a construct anyway and
therefore inherently false. despite that, msuci is still music. music is
not an elephant. taste is also a construct, derived empircally (in most
cases. brainwahsing is invovled in other cases). the aesthetic standard of
taste is also relative. your x and y aren't even x and y. x and y are
constructs; in your case aesthetic constructs. empirically,x and y should
be agreed upn factors. of course, we must remember the enjoyment of music
is innate...
<dripping.sarcasm>
so sammt... how old are you and how long have you been in intro philo?
the man in black aka yusuf islam
admit to liking a band because of a variable other than y? i think so! sam,
first you use your "scientific method" as a fucked up way of "averaging"
(really brah it didnt make you sound smarter), then in your reply to what
chris said you completely changed your explanation of how you applied x and
y to weezer. first you stated x amount of songs could be used to figure out
the unknown quality of y amount of songs. yeah ill give you that. it can.
but you sound far to idiotic by trying to apply x and y as variables in a
simple mathematical equation. but in your reply to chris' post about your x
and y reasoning you state that you like band x not because of the standard
of y, but because of another variable. THATS TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
RESPONSES TO CHRIS ( INVOLVING X AND Y ). if youre going to counter an
argument about your logic, counter it with a statement of relevancy. christ
youre making yourself out to be a complete chump.
spence
i dont think theres a punch-line scheduled, is there?
stop believing satans lies...trust christ today! - www.chick.com
If that's your thang, then go for it. I personally disagree with such an
approach. Music appreciation is on an individual basis for me. I don't
like band X because they are closer to some standard Y, I like band X
because they are able to interest me, my mind and my taste.
-Samuel
Nathan Scott
>
> my only real point is that you don't have to worship everything a
band does
> to be a fan... even a big crazy unhealthily obsessive fan. maybe
that
> should be called addiction.... ?
You don't have to worship everything necessarily. I would argue that
if you don't worship everything a band has ALREADY done, you aren't a
"big" fan, but that's mostly semantics. Regardless, mindless worship
is not what most of us here are doing. This is all one big fat
misunderstanding between everybody.
(Most of) The people who honestly enjoy and appreciate and like and
blah blah blah the new stuff, AREN'T just swallowing whatever Weezer
shovels at them and calling it the next Sgt. Pepper's. We actually...
like it! Likewise (most of) the people who don't like the new stuff
are not saying it's absolute crap and we deserve better. But a lot of
them can't seem to understand the concept that a lot of us enjoy it
plenty, and human nature being what it is, take it upon themselves to
make us aware of their inability to understand us quite profanely.
This makes for a shitty newsgroup.
I had another point but I forgot it and now I need to go.
marzioli
"the man
>wait did the kid who said there were only x and y variables in one post
just
>admit to liking a band because of a variable other than y? i think so!
Yes. Whereas variable y represented some standard of excellence by which
some band x must adhere to in order to be appreciated, some innate reaction
z is all that is necessary for me to like some band x. If this is going to
fast for you, let me know and I'll slow it down.
the man
>sam, first you use your "scientific method" as a fucked up way of
>"averaging" (really brah it didnt make you sound smarter),
It is apparent you are not familiar with the scientific method, so how could
you even hope to judge how smart someone is or isn't based on your alleged
perception of what it is? Sorry stranger, but it doesn't work that way.
the man
>then in your reply to what chris said you completely changed your
>explanation of how you applied x and y to weezer. first you stated x
>amount of songs could be used to figure out the unknown quality
>of y amount of songs.
Here's how it works. The first time I used x and y was in an inductive
argument in which I used some sample to predict the value of the unknown
Weezer song. The argument, because it was inductive, was bound to be
suspect and tenative, but it provided some basis for belief in the positive
value of subsequent Weezer tunes. This inductive argument was specifically
an argument from analogy. By analogy I mean that from the attribute/s or
property/ies of some songs x, I am inferring that a different instance of
those same attribute/s or property/ies will also be exhibited in song, or
songs y. In this case, the known attributes in songs x and y could be
"created by Rivers", "refined by Weezer". From analogy, then, I am
inferring that the known attribute of x (good melodies, wonderful harmonies,
extremely catchy) which we don't currently know is possessed in y is, by
analogy, also possessed in y. But the question then becomes, is x and y a
fixed quantity? Can it be used in other contexts to mean completely
different things? Of course it can. Just because I used x and y here
doesn't mean it is the same x and y that was used in some mathematical
equation by Einstein. In the second instance of x and y, I used y to
represent some technical standard or standard of excellence, and x to
represent any band. It was from this context that I drew the conclusion
that y is unnecessary for me, and that indeed some other innate reaction to
the music (which we can call z) is the source of my appreciation.
the man
>yeah ill give you that. it can. but you sound far to idiotic by trying to
apply
>x and y as variables in a simple mathematical equation.
None of these were mathematical. In fact, they were philosophical, and
amount to symbolic representation of some general known entity; bands and
songs, or standards.
the man
>but in your reply to chris' post about your x
>and y reasoning you state that you like band x not because of the
>standard of y, but because of another variable. THATS TWO
>COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RESPONSES TO CHRIS
>( INVOLVING X AND Y ).
Your point being...?
the man
>if youre going to counter an
>argument about your logic, counter it with a statement of relevancy.
>christ youre making yourself out to be a complete chump.
Is this Chris' father or brother? Or did both of you attend the same poor
philosophy class? First of all, Chris hasn't really challenged my logic,
and second of all the second set of x and y variables was a different
argument than the first. The second time was about music appreciation in
general, and not Weezer in particular.
Say, if you ever need clarification again, don't hesitate to ask.
-Samuel
Fung Koo
> the man
> >if youre going to counter an
> >argument about your logic, counter it with a statement of relevancy.
> >christ youre making yourself out to be a complete chump.
>
> Is this Chris' father or brother? Or did both of you attend the same poor
> philosophy class? First of all, Chris hasn't really challenged my logic,
> and second of all the second set of x and y variables was a different
> argument than the first. The second time was about music appreciation in
> general, and not Weezer in particular.
>
>
his point is, if you're gojng to use one set of values to determine you
what you like in one post, you should use the same set in your next post to
to readdress for the purposes of clarification. there was no real topic
change, so ones acribed values should remain fairly consistent.
and yeah, i did challenge your logic. you're drawing assumptions on
invisible qualities.
--
chris flood
====-|-====
icq - 3101074 | aim - Fung Koo IM | msn - fun...@hotmail.com
"You/this/that sucks,
and you/this/that is/are gay too."
- Nathan Scott
Marzioli
>>Is this Chris' father or brother? Or did both of you attend the same poor
>>philosophy class? First of all, Chris hasn't really challenged my logic,
>>and second of all the second set of x and y variables was a different
>>argument than the first. The second time was about music appreciation in
>>general, and not Weezer in particular.
Chris
>his point is, if you're gojng to use one set of values to determine you
>what you like in one post, you should use the same set in your next post to
>to readdress for the purposes of clarification. there was no real topic
>change, so ones acribed values should remain fairly consistent.
The variables represented different values because they were different
arguments. The first argument was basically settled in my mind, and so I
moved on to music appreciation. Spence simply misunderstood the purpose of
my point, or otherwise doesn't seem to understand how symbolic
representation works. I could create more x and y for this response, where
x equals the statements he misunderstood and y equals the statements he
understood, and then apply that to the earlier arguments. So long as the
reader understands the values, as they should by the context, then no one
should have had any real problems.
Chris
>and yeah, i did challenge your logic. you're drawing assumptions on
>invisible qualities.
Again, my appeal was to analogy and/or prediction.
-Samuel
Marzioli
>>All theories are tenative. We do not possess ultimate truth. Naturally
>>this is especially so for predictions. I can be no more sure of Weezer's
>>album being great (a prediction based on their previous work) than I can
be
>>of the sun rising tomorrow (a prediction based on previous rising). We
>>don't disagree on at least that part. However, suggesting I have made a
>>logical error very well might denote the fact you need to a tad bit more
>>reading in epistemology and philosophy of science.
Chris
>nice backpedaling, mr. philosophy.
Actually, this is and always will be my position. I'm a falsificationist,
you see, not your standard justificationist.
Samuel
>>That's your thang. Again, this is another of my points. Emotion and
>>intellectual stimulation in music is subjective. I don't find such
>>stimulants within that bands work.
Chris
>subjective? bollocks to you. if the creator of said art form has an
>intended message, that message becomes a part of the work.
>i wasn't talking about emotion or stimulation. i'm talking about
>expression and creativity. you claim music should be
>appreciated for what it is. if that is the case, then you should
>appreciate all music, then based on your own "likability"
>scale, define your preference.
That is the case with all art. You can't judge realism by the standards of
cubism, or cubism by the standards of impressionism. All art must be
appreciate by what sort of emotional or intellectual stimulation it provides
for the individual. Music, in my opinion, is art. The creativity comes in
creating the music, and in the message itself, but one cannot judge
creativity simply by its complexity or how it compares to some other song or
band. (You can't say that Bernie Wrightson sucks just because he didn't
acheive the standard of Rembrandt)
Chris
>you may not find stimulants with the work of
>gybe!, but again, thats not the issue. the issue is the music's merit is
>not in its desire to provide you with stiumlation. the music is a statement
>to be interpreted, much like poetry, essays, and research labs.
Exactly. And poetry is interpreted by the hearer or reader, possessing
multiple interpretations, and affects the hearer or reader different. See,
we're not so far off.
Chris
>this is like the difference between, say, john berger and john grisham or
>steven spielberg and jean-luc godard. grisham and spielberg direct your
>attention, tell their specific story, leave you little room to play in your
>imagination with possibility, relation or context... they merely allow you
>to zone out for two hours and take in the images they present. saving
>private ryan was a crap movie after the first 20 minutes. it had no merit
>or value. everyhting in it was designed to tell you a story. john grisham
>writes what are basically formula novels. he tells you the story and you're
>left with what? a nice little tale that lends you no cause for thought.
>meanwhile, berger writes a novel like G. or Pig Earth, employs various
>devices all designed to paint a portrait that you have to contemplate to
>understand, and in the end (with a little mental play) you come out with a
>little more understanding. godard made films that forced you apart from the
>lazy no-brained departing passive viewing of film to make you aware of
>certain elements and falsity. without thinking about what you're seeing you
>cannot hope to understand whats going on.
Again, you can't compare Andy Warhol with Rembrandt. Some people like
Campbell soup cans, some people like Mona Lisa.
Chris
>this is like gybe! compared to weezer. weezer is basically a pleasing
>listen. some people manage to find soemthing more, but to the average
>shmuck weezer is just "a call to hedonism" and fun to listen to a bop
>around to. gybe! is soemthing that takes intellect to listen to. you can't
>just sit there and take it in. it takes soaking.
If that's your bag, then go for it. I appreciate good music and leave my
intellectual stimulation to Popper, Russel, Mayr, Behe, Bruce, and Summers.
Chris
>so back to the point. its not about what you find stimulating. you can't
>dismiss music in general as requiring to be taken for "what it is."
I can, and a lot of people can and do. What you are trying to say is that
you don't, and I don't agree with that. Without accepting a different style
or a different statement, even a simple statement, for what it is you can
lose the value of what it was meant to be forcing it into a mold it was
never intended for. The appreciation is lost.
Chris
>whether
>you listen to aband or not can come down to the appeal of sound. you might
>not like the sound of gybe!, but according to you, you have to accept it
>for what it is. it is intellectual. if you "just like it" you're insulting
>their art.
I don't like it. So I guess I narrowly escaped insulting their art.
Incidentally, I hate Warhol too.
Samuel
>>Very easily. That's my view of the matter. Music enjoyment is innate. A
>>mediocre band can acheive an amazing emotional and intellectual statement
>>without being as good as Jeff Beck on guitar, or Patrick on drums. Skill
is
>>not a necessary condition, rather a sufficient condition.
Chris
>"music enjoyment is innate."... lol! are you trying to be retarded? its
>impossible to avoid music. i can't imagine life without it, but innate?
>hardly! how can you argue empiricism and then turn around and make this
>claim?
In the sense that all art is enjoyed by some inner born quality by which we
enjoy, or are able to enjoy, all forms of beauty and creativity.
Chris
>|"well deal, i did." thats your answer. "thats my view of the
>matter." humph... if you're gonna preach about how you've empircally and
>deductively concluded that you like product X of music, do the same for
>music in general, eh? so innately you should like gybe! then.
The empirical fact was that I liked the music. This was not acheived
through deduction, but in fact induction. Those comments you refer to were
counting your claim that I was a blind faith fan. Instead, I was telling
you that I heard the songs, and liked what I heard, which can't be faith you
spoke of.
Samuel
>>If that's your thang, then go for it. I personally disagree with such an
>>approach. Music appreciation is on an individual basis for me. I don't
>>like band X because they are closer to some standard Y, I like band X
>>because they are able to interest me, my mind and my taste.
Chris
>if thats MY thang? apparently its yours, not mine! "music enjoyment is
>innate" after all... oh, but now its on an individual basis? i thought it
>was innate! Sammy, whats up? you're confusing yourself!
I think you're confused. I'll give you a couple of more years in the
university, and we'll see what you can come up with.
Chris
>i think mr. philosophy needs to study his text book a little harder!
<chuckle>
-Samuel
Fung Koo
> The variables represented different values because they were different
> arguments. The first argument was basically settled in my mind, and so I
> moved on to music appreciation. Spence simply misunderstood the purpose of
> my point, or otherwise doesn't seem to understand how symbolic
> representation works. I could create more x and y for this response, where
> x equals the statements he misunderstood and y equals the statements he
> understood, and then apply that to the earlier arguments. So long as the
> reader understands the values, as they should by the context, then no one
> should have had any real problems.
dude you need to be pistol whipped. if i hear "x and y" one more time i
think i'm gonna go nuts! do you only subscribe to algebraic philosophies or
what? i mean really, you're using your idea of scientific processes and
philosophical to evaluate what is best understood by using theories of
aesthetics and standards of taste. i mean sure you can invent some long and
involved equation to determine your answer if you want, but sheesh! thats
an awful lot of work.
frankly i doubt you actually use your scientifically philosophical methods
to determine your aesthetic judgements. you have yet to safisfactorily
present your equation, instead referring to ambiguous x's and y's that are
entirely open for interpretation.... i can detail exactly why i like what i
do and why i don't like what i don't. if you want to quantify that into
mathmetical variables, go ahead, but you're not arguing a scientific
process even. you can't argue scientifically your reasons if enjoyment is
innate. enjoyment isn't innate, and i can prove that. the more you're
exposed to certain kinds of music, the more likely you are to like them.
this explains the "it takes a few listens" phenomenon. people are also more
likely to enjoy music they have heard before, or music in similar genres or
sounds. so theres your empirical (though non-logically valid) arguement
from the realm of psychology. it may prove why you like what you do like,
but you're arguing the semantics of philosophical reasoning to determine
degrees of likability. which is soemthing based entirely on exposure. if
you never once heard music growing up, it would be little different on
first impression than the noise in a forest or the sound of cars, or every
other incidental sound you've ever heard.
so, lay out your x's, then your y's (whichever way you choose to define
them, but please be clear), apply your Z innate thingy, then please tell me
how you explain your prediction. by your rationale it seems predictions are
excersizes in futility... after all, enjoyment is innate. its therefore a
foregone conclusion you will like music. what the fuck...?
samuel: pull your head out of your ass for one second and realize this...
its not that i don't understand what you're saying or what you're talking
about. its that you're not making any sense to me. your explanations argue
for science then you leave shit up in the air as relative topics. in
science you use cause and effect to determine things. you're using and/or
and yes/no statements combined with maybes. are we talking plato here? or
locke? or hume? who?!?!? then you drag in definitives, and frankly leave me
with the impression that you don't know shit about shit. i'm not just being
thick headed and stubborn here and trying to prove myself more intelligent
than you... you're seriously not making consistent sense. or, you're just
not explaining yourself correctly. i encourage you to try... maybe you'll
see you are in error and accidently believing in things that are in direct
opposition to one another. maybe you'll point out something you didn't
before that will make me get where ever the hell it is you're coming from.
Fung Koo
>
> That is the case with all art. You can't judge realism by the standards of
> cubism, or cubism by the standards of impressionism. All art must be
> appreciate by what sort of emotional or intellectual stimulation it provides
> for the individual. Music, in my opinion, is art. The creativity comes in
> creating the music, and in the message itself, but one cannot judge
> creativity simply by its complexity or how it compares to some other song or
> band. (You can't say that Bernie Wrightson sucks just because he didn't
> acheive the standard of Rembrandt)
horeshit. if an artist intends to convey a specific message, then the
extraneous meanings you derive from it are up to you. and yes, you can
evaluate art based on cross-ideological theories. an impressionist can
evaluate a cubist painting, as a cubist can evaluate a cubist painting.
they are ideologies separate from the intention, and since as you say the
"artistic stimulation" one recives will be based on which ideology yo
uadhere to, your judgement in limited to your own view point. and since you
say music is art, then it is a construct, and not something automatically
guaranteed to provide this stimulation.
and yes, you CAN judge creativity by comparing one creators works to
anothers. you can't honestly tell me that these new songs are the most
creative endeavours you've ever heard. even on weezer's own standard! cross
comparison just lends itself to greater understanding of even the concept
of creativity as a whole.
> Exactly. And poetry is interpreted by the hearer or reader, possessing
> multiple interpretations, and affects the hearer or reader different. See,
> we're not so far off.
no we are, because i'm saying the authors had a message intended i nthe
body of work. your job as the reciver ofit is to try to understand that
message. whayever ese you get from it is a self construction.
> Again, you can't compare Andy Warhol with Rembrandt. Some people like
> Campbell soup cans, some people like Mona Lisa.
again, a judgement in aesthetics. what are you falsifying?
> If that's your bag, then go for it. I appreciate good music and leave my
> intellectual stimulation to Popper, Russel, Mayr, Behe, Bruce, and Summers.
you're such a bejesus name dropper. (like the name i dropepd? ooh!) say who
they are for those of me who don't know. first AND last names are generally
helpful, if not at least refernces to their work.
> I can, and a lot of people can and do. What you are trying to say is that
> you don't, and I don't agree with that. Without accepting a different style
> or a different statement, even a simple statement, for what it is you can
> lose the value of what it was meant to be forcing it into a mold it was
> never intended for. The appreciation is lost.
who is forcing what into a mold? i thought the end product was up to the
perceiver to interpret ad gain meaning, hmm? i thought that values "of what
it was meant to be" were interretive? so, who is forcing what into a mold?
you forced your self into a mold. you're a falsificationist. now disprove
me.
blueguy
>
> Actually, this is and always will be my position. I'm a falsificationist,
> you see, not your standard justificationist.
this has gone on too far. i cant even bear myself to read the first few
sentences of each of your replies.
i think you should both join a weezer debate club.
or something like that....
"im gonna break the bank of texas"
marzioli
>>That is the case with all art. You can't judge realism by the standards
of
>>cubism, or cubism by the standards of impressionism. All art must be
>>appreciate by what sort of emotional or intellectual stimulation it
provides
>>for the individual. Music, in my opinion, is art. The creativity comes
in
>>creating the music, and in the message itself, but one cannot judge
>>creativity simply by its complexity or how it compares to some other song
or
>>band. (You can't say that Bernie Wrightson sucks just because he didn't
>>acheive the standard of Rembrandt)
Chris
>horeshit. if an artist intends to convey a specific message, then the
>extraneous meanings you derive from it are up to you. and yes, you can
>evaluate art based on cross-ideological theories. an impressionist can
>evaluate a cubist painting, as a cubist can evaluate a cubist painting.
But to deny the artistic value of one based on another standard is folly.
Thus cubists and impressionists had to define a position for themselves by
breaking the mold of previous artistic styles. One could have looked at
those new styles and said, "this does not conform to the standard I hold
with artists such as Rembrandt and Raphael", but by doing so they would have
lost out on appreciation of a style which had merits. (Those merits, of
course, being how we appreciate them on their own right). My point was not
to deny the ability to evaluate some style based on a perspective entrenched
in another style. This is obvious, and I even challenge that to some extent
you are doing this to Weezer. My point was that this is an incorrect
practice for pure artistic appreciation.
Chris
>they are ideologies separate from the intention, and since as you say the
>"artistic stimulation" one recives will be based on which ideology yo
>uadhere to, your judgement in limited to your own view point.
This is true, but my contention is that it is true of everyone, regardless
if they realize it or not. My point is that one can decrease or increase
their appreciation, and that appreciation of a song as an individual entity
is the best form. Otherwise, without allowing individuality, which in this
case entails harshly judging some new thing based on some previous thing,
nothing new could be appreciated and something that might have merit in and
by itself could very possibly be ignored and forgotten. This, for example,
could very well be what happened to Pinkerton. It was being judged based on
previous Weezer albums, and the current "popular" trend, as opposed to the
merits of the album in and by itself.
Chris
>and since you say music is art, then it is a construct, and not
>something automatically guaranteed to provide this stimulation.
Any sense data received is a stimulant, and as such is guarenteed to provide
some stimulation (relating to the type of sensory data it is). Whether or
not it is perceived as good stimulation is another question, and something
which I have already said anyway.
Chris
>and yes, you CAN judge creativity by comparing one creators works to
>anothers. you can't honestly tell me that these new songs are the most
>creative endeavours you've ever heard. even on weezer's own standard!
I can evaluate based on other works, and currently I enjoy Pinkerton the
best. But I also have not exposed myself to this new music to any degree
either. But nevertheless, I like early Impossibles. The band wasn't super,
only decent, but I appreciate them as much as some more talented bands.
Technical comparisons in that case is worthless, as the appreciation was
based on how it affected me, not how it compared to some previous band in,
say, skill. Again, the best form of artistic appreciation is the thing in
itself and how it affects you. (My basis is the negative effects of not
doing so, and the positive effects of doing so, as I denoted above).
Chris
>cross comparison just lends itself to greater understanding of even
>the concept of creativity as a whole.
One need not know how Rembrandt moved his brush to enjoy his work.
Technical aspects of some creative aspect are typically only interesting to
people in similar fields of work or interest. This might be relevant to
you, but I suggest it is irrelevant to a majority of people who can enjoy
the music the same as you can, if not better.
Samuel
>>Exactly. And poetry is interpreted by the hearer or reader, possessing
>>multiple interpretations, and affects the hearer or reader different.
See,
>>we're not so far off.
Chris
>no we are, because i'm saying the authors had a message intended
>i nthe body of work. your job as the reciver ofit is to try to understand
>that message. whayever ese you get from it is a self construction.
This implies the artist had a single vision in mind, a specific message to
convey. This is clearly not always true. However, concerning intent when
it is present, the best one can do is attempt to interpret as the author
intended, which is not always possible. In which case, it is interpreted
differently and appreciated differently. Nevertheless, some poem can be
appreciated for different reasons.
Samuel
>>Again, you can't compare Andy Warhol with Rembrandt. Some people like
>>Campbell soup cans, some people like Mona Lisa.
Chris
>again, a judgement in aesthetics. what are you falsifying?
Comparisons are irrelevant to true art appreciation. As I said, the true
appreciation is that which accepts some piece for what it is, and how it
affects you as the listener.
Samuel
>>If that's your bag, then go for it. I appreciate good music and leave my
>>intellectual stimulation to Popper, Russel, Mayr, Behe, Bruce, and
Summers.
Chris
>you're such a bejesus name dropper. (like the name i dropepd? ooh!) say who
>they are for those of me who don't know. first AND last names are generally
>helpful, if not at least refernces to their work.
Musicians or writers, the point was I don't expect intellectual stimulation
in my music, and rarely if ever get it. I leave that to works of
philosophy, science, and other similar interests (for instance history).
Samuel
>>I can, and a lot of people can and do. What you are trying to say is that
>>you don't, and I don't agree with that. Without accepting a different
style
>>or a different statement, even a simple statement, for what it is you can
>>lose the value of what it was meant to be forcing it into a mold it was
>>never intended for. The appreciation is lost.
Chris
>who is forcing what into a mold?
By comparisons, by standards, by criterias, one is forcing some piece which
should be evaluated on its own merits into a preconceived mold.
Chris
>i thought the end product was up to the perceiver to interpret ad gain
>meaning, hmm?
Indeed. But change "gain meaning" to "perceive meaning".
Chris
>i thought that values "of what it was meant to be" were
>interretive?
Intuitive? Artistic appreciation potential is inherent in all human life.
I'm not sure what "interretive" means.
Chris
>so, who is forcing what into a mold?
Any one who uses some preconceived standard to judge some artistic
expression.
Chris
>you forced your self into a mold.
Inevitable, if we take that in a general sense. The object is to decrease
or minimize such practice, when able. All men and women must accept a world
view by which to interpret all sense data they perceive into coherent
positions. Without doing so, they cannot act within the real world since
they would have no ability to interact within it.
Chris
>you're a falsificationist. now disprove me.
The falsification I offer is for the proposition that your standard is of
merit.
-Samuel
marzioli
>this has gone on too far. i cant even bear myself to read the first few
>sentences of each of your replies.
>
>i think you should both join a weezer debate club.
>
>or something like that....
I apologize. Chris seems to make it a point to address my points in detail,
and accuse me of making mistakes I didn't make. I don't mind people
disagreeing with me by first understanding what I mean and write and then
stating why, but it's not right to let confusion arise because I did not
take the time to correct it.
-Samuel
marzioli
>dude you need to be pistol whipped. if i hear "x and y" one more time i
>think i'm gonna go nuts! do you only subscribe to algebraic philosophies
>or what?
The common use of such variables is due to the ease by which they are typed,
and still convey great meaning. I can keep typing "some song or songs" or I
can attribute the value "some song or songs" to the variable "x". It's
actually quite nifty, so long as the reader is made aware of what is going
on. Variables are worthless in this arena without attributed meaning.
Chris
>i mean really, you're using your idea of scientific processes and
>philosophical to evaluate what is best understood by using theories
>of aesthetics and standards of taste.
I only used the scientific method as a means of dispelling the idea of blind
faith. As for philosophy, logic is the basis for all valid and sound
argumentation. Anything, from aesthetics to science, ultimately rests on
logic.
Chris
>i mean sure you can invent some long and
>involved equation to determine your answer if you want, but sheesh! thats
>an awful lot of work.
I type fast.
Chris
>frankly i doubt you actually use your scientifically philosophical methods
>to determine your aesthetic judgements.
Only so far as I stated. My opinion on music appreciation was that it must
be enjoyed on an individual basis, because of its own merits. Nothing
objective as far as that is concerned, and thus no science.
Chris
>you have yet to safisfactorily present your equation, instead
>referring to ambiguous x's and y's that are entirely open for
>interpretation...
I apologize as far as this is concerned. You had implied you were a
philosophy student, which I improperly assumed involved some logic. Let x
and y be valued according to the context they are applied. I usually use a
key such as "some band x", and then "x", where x equals any band.
Chris
>i can detail exactly why i like what i do and why i don't like what i
>don't.
See my post on music appreciation. This is, to a great extent, why I don't
like your form of music appreciation. Naturally, I have no problem with you
having it, only that I will never as far as I can help it.
Chris
>if you want to quantify that into
>mathmetical variables, go ahead, but you're not arguing a scientific
>process even. you can't argue scientifically your reasons if enjoyment is
>innate. enjoyment isn't innate, and i can prove that. the more you're
>exposed to certain kinds of music, the more likely you are to like them.
I agree to your last point. In subsequent posts I define how the innate
reference was to the potential to enjoy artistic expression, not some
specific form.
Chris
>this explains the "it takes a few listens" phenomenon. people are also more
>likely to enjoy music they have heard before, or music in similar genres or
>sounds. so theres your empirical (though non-logically valid) arguement
>from the realm of psychology. it may prove why you like what you do like,
>but you're arguing the semantics of philosophical reasoning to determine
>degrees of likability. which is soemthing based entirely on exposure. if
>you never once heard music growing up, it would be little different on
>first impression than the noise in a forest or the sound of cars, or every
>other incidental sound you've ever heard.
Exposure is only part of it. I have been exposed to a lot of music I hated
and will always hate, and only some which I like. Obviously exposure could
have played a part, but was not a sufficient condition for musical taste.
Chris
>so, lay out your x's, then your y's (whichever way you choose to define
>them, but please be clear), apply your Z innate thingy, then please tell me
>how you explain your prediction. by your rationale it seems predictions are
>xcersizes in futility... after all, enjoyment is innate. its therefore a
>foregone conclusion you will like music. what the fuck...?
The analogy was simply this. Weezer's known songs have qualities similar to
their unknown songs. It is therefore reasonable to believe that the
properties which made us like the previous songs are also present in the
latter. That is, as far as I'm concerned.
Chris
>samuel: pull your head out of your ass for one second and realize this...
>its not that i don't understand what you're saying or what you're talking
>about. its that you're not making any sense to me.
Note my confusion. You understand what I'm saying, but it makes no sense?
Chris
>your explanations argue
>for science then you leave shit up in the air as relative topics. in
>science you use cause and effect to determine things. you're using and/or
>and yes/no statements combined with maybes.
You are confusing science with the scientific method. The method can be
applied to many things because it is a procedure. Science itself would
never dabble in Samuel's musical taste. Don't confuse my use of the method
with a claim that my taste is science.
Chris
>are we talking plato here? or locke? or hume? who?!?!?
No
Chris
>then you drag in definitives, and frankly leave me
>with the impression that you don't know shit about shit.
Chalk it up to your understanding without understanding. Incidentally, not
being able to understand a writer is the main reason cliff notes were
created. Lucky you I'm still around to clarify what I meant. Language is
tough, I'll give you that.
Chris
>i'm not just being
>thick headed and stubborn here and trying to prove myself more intelligent
>than you... you're seriously not making consistent sense. or, you're just
>not explaining yourself correctly. i encourage you to try... maybe you'll
>see you are in error and accidently believing in things that are in direct
>opposition to one another. maybe you'll point out something you didn't
>before that will make me get where ever the hell it is you're coming from.
I submit my clarifications as better explanations for what I wrote then your
assumption they are contradictory. If you wish, feel free to refer to
specifics and we can discuss that. One of the grounds for your
misunderstanding might be the multiple topics you decided to address all in
the same thread.
-Samuel
marzioli
>>What a nut. Incidentally, even if its a dumb statement its also a true
one.
>>One of these days when you grow up, learn a thing or two, you might then
>>understand. As for now, I can't expect you to grasp it.
Chris
>and no, it wasn't a "true" statement. truth is relative, buddy boy. a
>little existentialism should've pointed that out to you.
Truth, ideally defined as reality as it really is, is never absolute. Truth
as we have it might be absolute, but we could never know it. My claim,
then, is that my statement is truth as far as we know, or at least that it
is some approximation of truth higher than the alternatives we know.
Chris
>"But the sort of "taste" being used here is always of comparison, always of
>implementing standards, always of criticism. That's a sure sign that the
>music is not being enjoyed or accepted for what it is."
Not always. See my other posts.
Chris
>i would like you to explain what truth there is in your statement.
I made a lot of statements. Which one do you want me to prove is true, as
far as we know, or at least better than the alternatives you have?
Chris
>based on aesthetics, you have to remove empiricism by degrees to
>reveal what layers of truth you are explaining. if the truth you are
>displaying is that "music is what it is." then you have just
>constructed a cyclical argument that cannot be disproved.
All my positions are falsifiable. My taste is the only thing unfalsifiable,
but neither is it is a statement to be evaluated as true or false. As for
empiricism, that only relates to the presence of the songs which can be
subjectively evaluated, not to the taste which was empirical. Also, it
relates to the fact of my taste being such a way, even if the taste itself
was subjective. Try not applying things to my position and allowing my
position to speak for itself.
Chris
>existentially music is a construct anyway and
>therefore inherently false.
This is meaningless to me.
Chris
>despite that, msuci is still music. music is
>not an elephant. taste is also a construct, derived empircally (in most
>cases. brainwahsing is invovled in other cases). the aesthetic standard of
>taste is also relative. your x and y aren't even x and y. x and y are
>constructs; in your case aesthetic constructs. empirically,x and y should
>be agreed upn factors. of course, we must remember the enjoyment of music
>is innate...
My x and y concerning standards is bands (x) and technical/critical
standards of evaluation (y). My alternative (z) was a
non-technical/critical standard, rather simply whether or not some external
musical stimulus was positive or negative.
-Samuel
the man in black aka yusuf islam
> arguments. The first argument was basically settled in my mind, and so I
> moved on to music appreciation.
>Spence simply misunderstood the purpose of
> my point, or otherwise doesn't seem to understand how symbolic
> representation works
i understood what you were getting at. apparently you didnt catch what i was
getting at. the first sentence in my post was to distinguish you did in fact
make two seperate statements. i went on to state that in your first
"equation" you used only x and y. and in your second equation you used x y
and another variable. i was commenting that you replied to chris' post about
your x and y bullshit with a completely different argument using x y and a
different variable. you keep preaching your x and y arguments yet you keep
injecting variables other than x and y into them. essentially what YOU are
saying is i adhere to x and y but i contradict that a lot by throwing in
other variables to suit my needs when need be. maybe id be more okay with
this logic if you didnt blatantly agree with chris when he stated that you
basically take "two factors" and make a decision. YOU called that the
scientific method in a nutshell ("testability and falsifiability"). maybe id
be okay with all of this if you actually adhered to two factors or at least
modified your explanation of your process to allow another variable. and if
you are using x and y in a different way other than your scientific method
in a nutshell.... use different letters to denote the variables so they
arent confused if this is the case. use A B and C for all i care.
>>> Exactly. And poetry is interpreted by the hearer or reader, possessing
>>> multiple interpretations, and affects the hearer or reader different.
See,
>>> we're not so far off.
when i read this it brought to mind an image of nails on a chalk board. its
"listener" not "hearer". you sound like a backwoods hillbilly talking about
his edjumacation.
>> Again, you can't compare Andy Warhol with Rembrandt. Some people like
>> Campbell soup cans, some people like Mona Lisa.
i hope youre not suggesting rembrandt painted the mona lisa. cause if you
are, thats just crazy talk. insane crazy talk. if youre going to talk about
art, at least apply the correct artists to the correct paintings. and dont
say "blaaah! i was using two seperate examples from warhol and rembrandt!"
because its clear you were associating campbell soup cans to warhol and
evidently in your mind the mona lisa with rembrandt. and if its just mixed
wires crossing da vincis name with rembrandt... proof read and check your
facts.
> >i think mr. philosophy needs to study his text book a little harder!
> <chuckle>
while mr. philosophy is studying his textbooks, will you do me a favor and
pick up one on art history? that mona lisa thing was obnoxious and it made
you look like a fool. thanks.
--
spence
i dont think theres a punch-line scheduled, is there?
stop believing satans lies...trust christ today! - www.chick.com
"Marzioli" <non...@business.net> wrote in message
news:9ao4ku$50d6$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Chris
> >this is like the difference between, say, john berger and john grisham or
> >steven spielberg and jean-luc godard. grisham and spielberg direct your
> >attention, tell their specific story, leave you little room to play in
your
> >imagination with possibility, relation or context... they merely allow
you
> >to zone out for two hours and take in the images they present. saving
> >private ryan was a crap movie after the first 20 minutes. it had no merit
> >or value. everyhting in it was designed to tell you a story. john grisham
> >writes what are basically formula novels. he tells you the story and
you're
> >left with what? a nice little tale that lends you no cause for thought.
> >meanwhile, berger writes a novel like G. or Pig Earth, employs various
> >devices all designed to paint a portrait that you have to contemplate to
> >understand, and in the end (with a little mental play) you come out with
a
> >little more understanding. godard made films that forced you apart from
the
> >lazy no-brained departing passive viewing of film to make you aware of
> >certain elements and falsity. without thinking about what you're seeing
you
> >cannot hope to understand whats going on.
>
>
marzioli
>>The variables represented different values because they were different
>>arguments. The first argument was basically settled in my mind, and so I
>>purpose of my point, or otherwise doesn't seem to understand how
>>symbolic representation works
Spence
>i understood what you were getting at. apparently you didnt catch what i
was
>getting at. the first sentence in my post was to distinguish you did in
fact
>make two seperate statements. i went on to state that in your first
>"equation" you used only x and y. and in your second equation you used x y
>and another variable. i was commenting that you replied to chris' post
about
>your x and y bullshit with a completely different argument using x y and a
>different variable.
My first set of variables have nothing to do with the second and the second
is not a defense of the first. They are different statements of different
things, unrelated, save in the fact that the central issue is music. Trying
to demand they be related shows me that you either have no clue what's going
on or else you are demanding things arbitrarily.
Spence
>you keep preaching your x and y arguments yet you keep
>injecting variables other than x and y into them. essentially what YOU are
>saying is i adhere to x and y but i contradict that a lot by throwing in
>other variables to suit my needs when need be.
I can't adhere to x in the first set. That was songs I heard and liked. I
can't adhere to x in the second sense. That was bands. I don't adhere to y
in the first set. Those were songs that I didn't hear but by analogy
inferred would be good. I don't adhere to y in the second set. That was
the technical/critical standard that I believe undermines true music
appreciation. The only variable I could be said to "adhere" to is z, which
is taking some artistic expression as it is and judging its worth by how it
stimulates my mind. My question is, my apparently confused friend, is what
in the world are you talking about when you said that I am saying I adhere
to x and y? I don't. Second how does variable x (bands) and y
(technical/critical standards) contradict x (songs I've heard and liked) and
y (songs I infer I will like)? Third, are you sure you're keeping up, or
are you making like you do as we go along?
Spence
>maybe id be more okay with this logic if you didnt blatantly agree with
>chris when he stated that you basically take "two factors" and make
>a decision. YOU called that the scientific method in a nutshell
>"testability and falsifiability").
The scientific method was being applied to the subjective phenomenon of
taste. That's the only time I refer to the scientific method:
"Or else I can take this by terms of falsificationism. Each track I listen
to that I like is a test of the worth of the new songs. With each
test passed, the idea that the new album is good is that much more
corroborated. Unfortunately, this isn't faith. One's logic and the other
is a scientific method applied to music appreciation."
As for Chris saying you basically take "two factors" and make a decision, I
don't believe I agreed with that, but I can't say at face value it means
much for or against my position.
Spence
>maybe id be okay with all of this if you actually adhered to two factors
>or at least modified your explanation of your process to allow another
>variable.
Is this called anal rentention? "You... you can't include more variables,
you only used two before!!!" Sorry Spence, but variables are a dime a
dozen. I never limited myself to two, in fact I usually use more in issues
where I have to repeate some subject/s and some object/s multiple times.
That's the purpose of variables in philosophy, to shorten what has to be
expressed while retaining the same proposition. You can only be talking
about x bands and y technical/critical standard, but if you are then you
forget that z is a non-technical and critical standard. I therefore did not
disallow more than two variables there.
Spence
>and if you are using x and y in a different way other than your scientific
>method in a nutshell....
Dude, the method was only used in the falsification sense above, testability
and falsifiability. It had nothing to do with the analogy or the standard,
in which I used the variables you so despise.
Spence
>use different letters to denote the variables so they
>arent confused if this is the case. use A B and C
>for all i care.
Thanks for the suggestion, but now you are just telling me how you prefer I
symbolize subjects and objects. Pointless.
Samuel
>>>>Exactly. And poetry is interpreted by the hearer or reader, possessing
>>>>multiple interpretations, and affects the hearer or reader different.
>>>>See, we're not so far off.
Spence
>when i read this it brought to mind an image of nails on a chalk board. its
>"listener" not "hearer". you sound like a backwoods hillbilly talking about
>his edjumacation.
Either you have a poor ability to find my legitimate mistakes, or you are
elevating the backwood hillbilly by attributing to them legitimate English
words.
hearer - 1. one who hears; an auditor, listener; 2. one who receives oral
instruction, or attends lectures or sermons; a disciple; 3. eccl. hist. one
admitted to hear the scriptures... example: "He knows me to be a very
patient hearer".
In the future, keep in mind that English possesses hundreds of thousands of
words, and each dictionary does not.
Yeehaw!
Samuel
>>>Again, you can't compare Andy Warhol with Rembrandt. Some people like
>>>Campbell soup cans, some people like Mona Lisa.
Spence
>i hope youre not suggesting rembrandt painted the mona lisa. cause if you
>are, thats just crazy talk. insane crazy talk.
I was comparing artists, styles and subject matter. I merely used Warhol
and Campbell soup cans because they immediately came to mind, where as
Rembrandt and Mona Lisa (which are not so related) immediately come to mind.
Spence
>if youre going to talk about art, at least apply the correct artists to the
>correct paintings.
Is this an attempt to slander me, or do you actually have a point? Your
assumptions don't prove my intent, no matter how you might wish they did.
Also, purposefully misinterpreting a sentence doesn't prove a fault with the
author. No, instead it proves the reader faulty. That's one to chew on.
Spence
>And dont say "blaaah! i was using two seperate examples from warhol
>and rembrandt!"
If you knew what I was doing, which is apparent by what you just wrote, then
why did you even bother trying to claim I didn't know what I was doing? So
you anticipated the reality of the situation and thought you could make me
avoid it by denoting it before I responded? What is this, "I said it first
therefore you can't use it"? :)
Spence
>because its clear you were associating campbell soup cans to warhol and
>evidently in your mind the mona lisa with rembrandt. and if its just mixed
>wires crossing da vincis name with rembrandt...
If you say so. Apparently you think you have a better grasp of my mind than
I do.
Spence
>proof read and check your facts.
I'll refrain from the obvious.
Samuel
>>>i think mr. philosophy needs to study his text book a little harder!
>>><chuckle>
Spence
>while mr. philosophy is studying his textbooks, will you do me a favor and
>pick up one on art history? that mona lisa thing was obnoxious and it made
>you look like a fool. thanks.
<rolls eyes>
<coughcoughanalretentivecoughcough>
I guess I just can't please some hearers and readers.
-Samuel
Fung Koo
> The falsification I offer is for the proposition that your standard is of
> merit.
>
ok, so my position being of merit then, why is it that one such as that kid
that started this whole thing by calling me a non-fan can do so and make
such a judgement? if my position offers merit, and i'm guessing that from
how long this argument is taking that you think his position is of merit as
well, then am i not just as much a "fan" as he is? just a different kind of
one?
this is what i'm getting at. i'm just high enough on my horse to believe
that anyone who is believes the notions "can't we all just get along" and
"if you naysay on weezer you're not a fan" is a putz.
so, sammy, do you concede then that I and the people like me who (for
WHATEVER reason) dislike the new material are at the very least equal in a
quantity of fandom? do we not have a place, and is this not the appropriate
place to discuss that fandom?
(by the way, interretive was interpretive, i think. it was one hell of a
typo, but if i ever need to invent a word, it mine!)
Fung Koo
> Note my confusion. You understand what I'm saying, but it makes no sense?
>
yeah, after re-reading that, that sounds pretty foolish. what i meant was:
i know where you're coming from (ie - the rudimentary aspects of the
philosophies you've pointed out), however your explanations have been lost
on me, and i'm not sure which lines you're drawing.
dig?
as for my "multiple topics"... the topics i presented were in direct
relation to my understanding of why i am a fan of weezer. like i said a
while ago, appreciation is different that liking. i i try to "appreciate"
music. that is, i examine it and its qualities to find things i find
agreeable in it, or of value. AND i seek that value based on what the
artist wishes to convey, not what i get from it. thats just for
appreciation. that toe tapping and head banging business is that "liking"
part i'm taking about. i have a whole list of what denotes likability to
me. but, likability is separate from my appreciation.
but like in my other post... do you or do you not concede that my position
as a fan is as secure, if not more secure (due to the soberness of my
appreciation for said band's music) than someone who can only say that they
"like" the band for ambiguous reasons?
Fung Koo
> I was comparing artists, styles and subject matter. I merely used Warhol
> and Campbell soup cans because they immediately came to mind, where as
> Rembrandt and Mona Lisa (which are not so related) immediately come to mind.
>
>
i thought that this was a bad thing to do? :)
apparently i'm not allowed to do it, so you aren't either. bad boy!
marzioli
>>The falsification I offer is for the proposition that your standard is of
>>merit.
Chris
>ok, so my position being of merit then, why is it that one such as that kid
>that started this whole thing by calling me a non-fan can do so and make
>such a judgement?
Well, no, I've attempted falsification that it had merit, based on the
reasons I offered in previous posts.
Chris
>if my position offers merit, and i'm guessing that from
>how long this argument is taking that you think his position is of merit as
>well, then am i not just as much a "fan" as he is? just a different kind of
>one?
I don't think anyone who calls you a non-fan has a legitimate position. You
just spent hours on end writing articles about how you've responded to
Weezer was acceptable. That's dedication.
Chris
>this is what i'm getting at. i'm just high enough on my horse to believe
>that anyone who is believes the notions "can't we all just get along" and
>"if you naysay on weezer you're not a fan" is a putz.
Amen, brutha.
Chris
>so, sammy, do you concede then that I and the people like me who (for
>WHATEVER reason) dislike the new material are at the very least equal in a
>quantity of fandom? do we not have a place, and is this not the appropriate
>place to discuss that fandom?
I believe you *can* be equal to *some* fans in their "fandom". I do not
believe that that level of fandom is equal to someone who, all things
considered, has everything and also likes the new stuff. Factors of
fanship, I would posit, also includes the quantity of songs that appeals to
you, and the quantity of songs that appeal to you in the band's essential
style, proportionate to the amount of songs released and/heard.
Chris
>(by the way, interretive was interpretive, i think. it was one hell of a
>typo, but if i ever need to invent a word, it mine!)
Ah. No big. None of us are getting paid for this.
-Samuel
marzioli
>>I was comparing artists, styles and subject matter. I merely used Warhol
>>and Campbell soup cans because they immediately came to mind, where as
>>Rembrandt and Mona Lisa (which are not so related) immediately come to
mind.
Chris
>i thought that this was a bad thing to do? :)
>
>apparently i'm not allowed to do it, so you aren't either. bad boy!
doh! Well, the comparison I make is to show there is no legitimate
comparison. Cute ain't it?
-Samuel
Fung Koo
> doh! Well, the comparison I make is to show there is no legitimate
> comparison. Cute ain't it?
>
> -Samuel
lol. :) this is why we're right about one thing... defining things is bad.
so i guess this backs me up then. weezer and gybe! aren't really good to
compare to each other sonicly, except i was talking about something that
they DO have in common, and thats objective AND subjective values. ipso
facto, you sire are in error.
JasonThePodRacer
May the Force be with you...
JasonThePodRacer
still boring the Muta Fuck out me.
-Jason
marzioli
Jason
> Due to much artistic and social contrain I must tell you both that you are
> still boring the Muta Fuck out me.
Go "play" with your cds.
-Samuel
marzioli
Samuel said
>> Note my confusion. You understand what I'm saying, but it makes no
sense?
Chris
>yeah, after re-reading that, that sounds pretty foolish. what i meant was:
>i know where you're coming from (ie - the rudimentary aspects of the
>philosophies you've pointed out), however your explanations have been lost
>on me, and i'm not sure which lines you're drawing.
>
> dig?
Been dug.
Chris
>as for my "multiple topics"... the topics i presented were in direct
>relation to my understanding of why i am a fan of weezer. like i said a
>while ago, appreciation is different that liking. i i try to "appreciate"
>music. that is, i examine it and its qualities to find things i find
>agreeable in it, or of value. AND i seek that value based on what the
>artist wishes to convey, not what i get from it. thats just for
>appreciation. that toe tapping and head banging business is that "liking"
>part i'm taking about. i have a whole list of what denotes likability to
>me. but, likability is separate from my appreciation.
I distinguish it between appreciating the music and appreciating a music's
particular qualities. Sometimes the qualities can affect the appreciation,
but music appreciation in and by itself is my opinion of the essence of
fanship, and thus "taste".
Chris
>but like in my other post... do you or do you not concede that my position
>as a fan is as secure,
Secure. But I never doubted it, especially after your extensive defense.
Chris
>if not more secure (due to the soberness of my
>appreciation for said band's music) than someone who can only say
>that they "like" the band for ambiguous reasons?
Sure. But like I said, all things the same, the one who likes their new
stuff should, by at least my standard, but a bigger fan. I don't think the
quantification of taste necessarily makes anyone a better fan.
So yeah.
-Samuel
marzioli
>>doh! Well, the comparison I make is to show there is no legitimate
>>comparison. Cute ain't it?
Chris
>lol. :) this is why we're right about one thing... defining things is bad.
>
>so i guess this backs me up then. weezer and gybe! aren't really good to
>compare to each other sonicly, except i was talking about something that
>they DO have in common, and thats objective AND subjective values. ipso
>facto, you sire are in error.
Well, sure, they have that in common. I didn't doubt it. But my point is
true appreciation is based on how the thing (song, for instance) in itself
affects you personally.
-Samuel
JasonThePodRacer
gladition some were higher on the Astral plane of hair buckle your intellectual
seatbelts and try to profisterizeicaltraudeions of our society.
What the fuck are you guys talking about?
Todd Smith
-Todd
"JasonThePodRacer" <jasonthe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010409235454...@ng-fu1.aol.com...