Reed_Bowie's forum posts

Avatar image for Reed_Bowie
Reed_Bowie

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Reed_Bowie
Member since 2011 • 506 Posts
Pseudo-Intellects
Avatar image for Reed_Bowie
Reed_Bowie

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Reed_Bowie
Member since 2011 • 506 Posts

Well it certainly doesn't make me like them more. That's why I try my best not to see pictures of bands I like, just in case they look like this.

decemberists01-450x394.jpg

But then I still like Interpol, so I guess it depends a lot on the music.

Cherokee_Jack
The Decemberists....Twee as fvck. But Belle and Sebastian can out-twee them.
Avatar image for Reed_Bowie
Reed_Bowie

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Reed_Bowie
Member since 2011 • 506 Posts
I live in Long Island, New York and it's pretty horrible. The weather is crap, there's nothing to do, the people are generally unfriendly to strangers, the traffic is horrible, and people drive like maniacs.
Avatar image for Reed_Bowie
Reed_Bowie

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Reed_Bowie
Member since 2011 • 506 Posts

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I did read your post, and I took away from it something different than you intended, based on the order you put you information. Writing something with a logical order will get you better responses. 

I would, and do, give low marks to a student who does not describe the topic adequately right up front.

A better analogy that "the moon is made of cheese" is "This lab sucked a**" as a first sentence, and then the lab experiment and results were described. Would you read that paper?

worlock77

Honestly, if you're that bad at reading then you shouldn't be instructing anyone. My thesis is clearly stated in the sentence: " Now, I think the reasoning behind this is that we're all conditioned to believe that the classic rock bands from the 60's-70's are the best and can't be beat." Hell, if you're that poor at reading, it's even the topic of the thread. Just because I may encounter people who are this bad at reading doesn't mean that I'm going to make my opening sentence: "THE TOPIC OF THIS ESSAY IS HOW SOCIETY CONDITIONS PEOPLE TO LIKE OLDER MUSIC" because, to me, that sounds blunt and stupid. I started with a rhetorical statement as a persuasive technique. And even after that, I like to introduce the topic so people have a better understanding of what I'm talking about.

Face it dude, your first post was bad. If you have to explain yourself after the fact then it's poorly written. Period.

I don't see how it's poorly written, at all. I can see how people fail to understand it, but I have no control over that.
Avatar image for Reed_Bowie
Reed_Bowie

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Reed_Bowie
Member since 2011 • 506 Posts

I'm inclined to disagree since music from the 70's is simply better from both technical and etertainment standpoints. If you can list one modern day album that's better than Permanent Waves or 2112 by Rush then I'll agree.

 

Also, bands in the 70's weren't in it for the money per say but they actually enjoyed making music. Most artists in today's music industry only care about money, and would explain why most mainstream artists they keep releasing one horrid song after another.

QuebecNationale
The production on many 70's albums isn't that great. I'm not gonna list an album better than the ones you listed because it's all a matter of taste. And there are plenty of musicians, today, who enjoy making music. You just don't hear about them as much.
Avatar image for Reed_Bowie
Reed_Bowie

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Reed_Bowie
Member since 2011 • 506 Posts

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

As a scientist, I would question if the one who wrote the paper was being serious, and my analysis of the article as written would be very different. If you really want to have a serious discussion, you have to learn how to write a thesis statement.

jimkabrhel

When I say "respond" I mean: Would you actually debate that the moon is not made of cheese, or would you read the rest of the paper? And I find it incredible how you made it to be a scientist yet you still don't know to read the entirety of something before responding to it. There's also a clear thesis in my post as to what I'm arguing. Just because it's not clearly stated in the first sentence doesn't mean it's not there.

I did read your post, and I took away from it something different than you intended, based on the order you put you information. Writing something with a logical order will get you better responses. 

I would, and do, give low marks to a student who does not describe the topic adequately right up front.

A better analogy that "the moon is made of cheese" is "This lab sucked a**" as a first sentence, and then the lab experiment and results were described. Would you read that paper?

Honestly, if you're that bad at reading then you shouldn't be instructing anyone. My thesis is clearly stated in the sentence: " Now, I think the reasoning behind this is that we're all conditioned to believe that the classic rock bands from the 60's-70's are the best and can't be beat." Hell, if you're that poor at reading, it's even the topic of the thread. Just because I may encounter people who are this bad at reading doesn't mean that I'm going to make my opening sentence: "THE TOPIC OF THIS ESSAY IS HOW SOCIETY CONDITIONS PEOPLE TO LIKE OLDER MUSIC" because, to me, that sounds blunt and stupid. I started with a rhetorical statement as a persuasive technique. And even after that, I like to introduce the topic so people have a better understanding of what I'm talking about.
Avatar image for Reed_Bowie
Reed_Bowie

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Reed_Bowie
Member since 2011 • 506 Posts

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

When you put your opinion of something as the first sentence of you post, it becomes part of the thread. 

Your opinion of musicians isn't the be-all-end-all of the world. There's not overt pressure to like older music. There are stations, on-air and on the internet that provide lots of variety. 

Listen to what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with your ideas about it.

jimkabrhel

And if a scientist used "Is the moon made of cheese" as an opening statement of a research paper on the moon, would you respond to that statement?

As a scientist, I would question if the one who wrote the paper was being serious, and my analysis of the article as written would be very different. If you really want to have a serious discussion, you have to learn how to write a thesis statement.

When I say "respond" I mean: Would you actually debate that the moon is not made of cheese, or would you read the rest of the paper? And I find it incredible how you made it to be a scientist yet you still don't know to read the entirety of something before responding to it. There's also a clear thesis in my post as to what I'm arguing. Just because it's not clearly stated in the first sentence doesn't mean it's not there.
Avatar image for Reed_Bowie
Reed_Bowie

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Reed_Bowie
Member since 2011 • 506 Posts
[QUOTE="VanHelsingBoA64"]The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved. In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with. Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially. Beatles' "Aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated African rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles. Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavors to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the "Fab Four". And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses. The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "Beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.

Thank you Based-Scaruffi.
Avatar image for Reed_Bowie
Reed_Bowie

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Reed_Bowie
Member since 2011 • 506 Posts

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Um, okay. Nice blog.

And you might not like the Beatles, but that doesn't mean they are a bad band.

jimkabrhel

The post is meant to have ideas and views on this particular issue exchanged....you know like a in a forum. And what I think of The Beatles isn't the point of this thread.

When you put your opinion of something as the first sentence of you post, it becomes part of the thread. 

Your opinion of musicians isn't the be-all-end-all of the world. There's not overt pressure to like older music. There are stations, on-air and on the internet that provide lots of variety. 

Listen to what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with your ideas about it.

And if a scientist used "Is the moon made of cheese" as an opening statement of a research paper on the moon, would you respond to that statement?
Avatar image for Reed_Bowie
Reed_Bowie

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Reed_Bowie
Member since 2011 • 506 Posts

[QUOTE="Reed_Bowie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Um, okay. Nice blog.

And you might not like the Beatles, but that doesn't mean they are a bad band.

jimkabrhel

The post is meant to have ideas and views on this particular issue exchanged....you know like a in a forum. And what I think of The Beatles isn't the point of this thread.

When you put your opinion of something as the first sentence of you post, it becomes part of the thread. 

Your opinion of musicians isn't the be-all-end-all of the world. There's not overt pressure to like older music. There are stations, on-air and on the internet that provide lots of variety. 

Listen to what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with your ideas about it.

If you actually read more into it, you'd see that my first statement isn't my opinion. It was just an example. I actually had to put an edit at the end of my post because of people like you who didn't read into the post.