quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
For some bizarre reason I thought that my posts were purely relevant to the thread's questions—whether they were joke questions or not. I am not trying to tell anyone how to listen to music; I just honestly feel that how eccentrically fast some people listen to music is a "dilemma in the indie rock community".

I'm sorry to start this once again, but your post proves once again that you fail to understand the point; I don't care that you listen at a different pace than I do or that it bothers you, I just find it ridiculous that you consider your way to be the right way or the normal way.

Before you respond protesting your innocence, check your language, specifically the word "eccentrically." Once again, FKA, you continue to use condescending language. "Eccentrically fast?" Did you ever stop to think that you might listen "eccentrically slowly?" Or that it doesn't matter at all?

You are so right; obviously my opinion doesn't/shouldn't matter. I was merely stating what I thought was a "dilemma in the indie rock community."

Sorry for getting in your way and for even posting a reply towards what people have been directing towards me for the past five days.

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
You are so right; obviously my opinion doesn't/shouldn't matter. I was merely stating what I thought was a "dilemma in the indie rock community."

Sorry for getting in your way and for even posting a reply towards what people have been directing towards me for the past five days.

Wow, it's too easy to predict your responses. Instead of actually responding to my point, you've put words into my mouth. Where have I said that "your opinion doesn't/shouldn't matter?"

All I've pointed out is that your language (not mine, if you read my post) is condescending and not at all objective. Look, my point is that I don't consider you to be "eccentric" but that you consider people who don't listen to music at the same pace as you to be "eccentric." I have only used your own words, where as you have made up mine. Your turn, please.

If you'd wanted to present a dilemma in a non-judgmental way, you could have said that the dilemma was "people listening to music at a very rapid pace," not people listening at an "eccentrically fast" pace.

Here's a "dilemma in the indie rock community:" people who think that their way is the only right way, instead of everyone's way being the right way (which is my personal belief).

This thread is now officially a dilemma in the indie rock community.

quote:

Originally posted by youandwhosearmy:
This thread is now officially a dilemma in the indie rock community.

I couldn't agree more.

quote:

Originally posted by Fitz:

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:

(Why did I post this?!)

finally, somebody posts something intelligent, and it's followed by a page of blather without a single acknowledgment.

i salute you mr. black.

Mucho thanks.

To be honest, I expected to be lampoooned for my opinions, but when I read the opinion that all old music is irrelevant, I felt the need to defend some of the older music listeners. Particularly as they were around the first time a lot of genres hit.

It's not that old music is better or worse than new music, more the fact that many older folllowers of music get fed up with rehashed retro genres that have been done before.

Anyway, I covered most of that in the post a couple of pages back. I'm glad someone read it!

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
It's not that old music is better or worse than new music, more the fact that many older folllowers of music get fed up with rehashed retro genres that have been done before.

I agreed but figured that it had already been covered thoroughly, was a ridiculous (trollish) statement in the first place, so I decided I didn't feel the need to address it. I'm not old though; sorry gramps.

Gramps indeed! Ooh the youth of today! It wasn't like that during World War II, I can tell you.

In those days, Megadeth were number one in the hit parade. I still play their old wax recordings on my dusty old gramophone. And a loaf of bread cost 1 pence. I remember when this were all fields etc.

I do try to keep up with modern trends. As a matter of fact, I'm just off to buy a luminous emo hat and listen to the fresh young sounds of Milli Vanilli (If my knees don't give out first).

I have to go anyway - Nurse Ratchett wants me to take my medication (A rare use of smilies there, to cover the fact I'm 34)

quote:

Originally posted by L. R. William Spencer:

Here's a "dilemma in the indie rock community:" people who think that their way is the only right way, instead of everyone's way being the right way (which is my personal belief).

I don't get the impression that FKA is telling you you're wrong, but just that in his opinion, the speed at which albums are consumed today is troubling. You're obviously free to disagree, but you should try to look at it from his perspective too.

I tend to agree with FKA. I'm not trying to be accusatory, but it often seems like since p2p and torrents have become the norm, people don't really take the time to let albums sink in. They download something, listen to it a few times, and move on to something else. Is that good or bad? I don't know. From my perspective, it makes me less excited about new music when people are gushing over a different album every other day. Especially when I've been around long enough to realize that no one will be talking about 90% of these albums in a year's time. It's gotten to the point where I can't even stand to read the Best Records of 20XX threads here anymore.

Again, I'm not pointing fingers at you, I'm just generalizing.

That's the whole problem with current indie trends in a nutshell. As long as it's new and there's at least 2 critics raving over it, it's an 'essential purchase'. It's become a contest to see who's got the coolest, newest, most obscure record.

I went through a stage like that many years ago. It's not something I'd care to repeat and most of the records I own from that phase are pretty boring.

Modern Indie, as much as many of it's followers like to state the contrary, is currently the most fashion conscious of all genres. If we compare it to clothing, it's like saying 'Have you seen the new colours for Autumn?'

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:

I have to go anyway - Nurse Ratchett wants me to take my medication (A rare use of smilies there, to cover the fact I'm 34)

'

Well, you've got me beat by a couple of years (now you're asking does "beat" mean he's older or younger? hmmm...). As I've gotten older, I've made an effort to expose myself to new music - and chronology is irrelevant. New can mean 2008 or 1978 for all I care. If I haven't heard it before, then it's new to me. We have threads dedicated to that. I don't think any of us would be on this forum if we weren't interested in expanding our music collection somehow. I think the original "fuck old music" line perhaps was meant as "fuck old classic stuff that's been played on the radio for decades". Am I close to the mark on that one?

quote:

Originally posted by FragileKidA:
You are so right; obviously my opinion doesn't/shouldn't matter. I was merely stating what I thought was a "dilemma in the indie rock community."

Sorry for getting in your way and for even posting a reply towards what people have been directing towards me for the past five days.

Your opinion matters, man. This is a board of love, togetherness, etc. I am sorry for my potshot at you, i thought you were directly insinuating that i consume music too quickly. I actually don't, i just get music and usually sit on it, and when something immediately jumps out at me, i tend to say something about it. Your opinion is just as important as everyone elses on this board, so keep on keepin' on.

Here's another indie-dilemma (it may have been mentioned, but there's so much tangential stuff on here to wade through): It's indie-publication's use of the "Alternate-Universe" way of thinking/writing. We've all seen this, perhaps even done it. It's when someone (usually) gives approval to something in indie-land by stating that "If the world were ready/In an alternate musical landscape/If people liked good music" or something of the sort, "Then this band would be the biggest band in the world". I find this way of thinking incredibly short-sighted, ridiculous, and completely selfish to be honest. If we're wishing for a different world, why not one where the Iraq War never happened and thousands of people who have died would still be alive today?

I guess that sums up my indie-dilemma: people who are overly concerned with music don't take the time to think about the world in which they live; rather, they posit an alternate existence in which Wilco sold 10 million records and changed the landscape of modern music (p4k suggested that actually)... This bugs me a lot.

Here are some more questions to ponder:

Is music art or entertainment?

Can it be both?

Do we treat (i.e. review) "art" bands differently from "entertainment" bands?

Should we?

Some have said music has essentially replaced poetry. Has it?

What do people "use" their music for?

Is music brain-enhancing or merely soma?

Does it really matter why we listen to music in the first place?

Music is...art! Only because I've never really considered my music to function as "entertainment." Entertainment says to me "fill time." A band like Tenacious D or Ween might "entertain" sometimes, but it's really an auxiliary function. I use and enjoy music because it inspires states of mind, changes or augments feelings and facilitates emotional catharsis.

It can be both! See: Wonderboy.

"We" sometimes do. It's stupid!

No way.

I HOPE music has replaced poetry. I mean am I crazy or did we do right leaving that stuff back in the 1800s? Boooooorrriiing!

Most people use their music to keep them distracted while they clean the toilet. They also use it when they're in the car and don't want to have to think about things like how they shouldn't be working at their job or married to the person they're married to. I don't think most people understand or particularly like music.

Music enhances our hearts, ezatldude. I think that's enough.


Real talk though: No one can expect much of an audience in a thread that has become somewhat of a gigantic splattering clusterfuck. Including me and I made the damn thing.

quote:

everyone's way being the right way (which is my personal belief)

the domination of freedom is still a domination. It's like, "i listen about 10 albums a day alone in my room and i do almost anything else than listening to music each day and i prefer doing that than learning or being with friends or my family...but it's MY way so it's right..."

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:
I don't get the impression that FKA is telling you you're wrong, but just that in his opinion, the speed at which albums are consumed today is troubling. You're obviously free to disagree, but you should try to look at it from his perspective too.

I tend to agree with FKA. I'm not trying to be accusatory, but it often seems like since p2p and torrents have become the norm, people don't really take the time to let albums sink in. They download something, listen to it a few times, and move on to something else. Is that good or bad? I don't know. From my perspective, it makes me less excited about new music when people are gushing over a different album every other day. Especially when I've been around long enough to realize that no one will be talking about 90% of these albums in a year's time. It's gotten to the point where I can't even stand to read the Best Records of 20XX threads here anymore.

Again, I'm not pointing fingers at you, I'm just generalizing.

But don't you realize that if I/we wanted to spend more time with a particular album, we could? When I was a kid I owned maybe 15-20 albums and wore them the fuck out, and I guarantee you if I had access to more I would have been all over it. So maybe I knew Dokken's Tooth and Nail inside and out, but was I better off? I like the pace I listen to albums now and I choose the pace. I'm just as happy now as I was then, that I promise. And anyone who can seriously compile a year end list of 20 or 50 albums (like most of us here can including both Eric and FKA) is listening to a shit-load of music and isn't spending any more time with an album than the rest of us.

Just this week FKA, I've seen you post positive remarks about Fleet Foxes and MMJ, with both just came out. Assuming you heard them first after purchasing the cd, you didn't get to spend much time with them. Doesn't that make you just as guilty as the rest of us?

Maybe I'm hearing FKA and Eric wrong and they understand they're part of the same problem they're pointing out.

quote:

Originally posted by eggtweedyegg:

quote:

everyone's way being the right way (which is my personal belief)

the domination of freedom is still a domination. It's like, "i listen about 10 albums a day alone in my room and i do almost anything else than listening to music each day and i prefer doing that than learning or being with friends or my family...but it's MY way so it's right..."

I'm sorry, egg, but that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. First of all, your insinuation that "I listen to about 10 albums a day alone in my room... and prefer doing that to learning or being with friends or my family" is flatly incorrect. Second, you are twisting my words to make it seem as though I am implying that my way is the only right way... what I am saying is that my way is the right way for me. It might not be right for you or for FKA or EricG, but to state that I am somehow co-opting freedom for myself is absurd.

Now I see why BlackGravel is driven to his rants. No one actually addresses the points made!

Not one person has correctly addressed my argument: namely, that however each person chooses to listen to music is the correct way for them. If you can prove otherwise, then prove it.

I get the impression he was just making a random point, rather than making an insinuation about you. I hope so anyway. Anyway, I completely agree it's up to each person as to how much they listen to albums. Some people form attachments to albums and listen to them countless times, while others prefer to listen to a greater amount of stuff, including a steady intake of new stuff. I'm not sure why this is even a point of contention, to be honest.

On to other matters, music is certainly art, and surely brain-enhancing, and poetry sucks!

Splatterhouse was a weird series. It's like they were PURE horror games. By that I mean that they inspired horror, characterized by disgust and shock, by way of the gross pus-and vomit-spraying creatures, but not actual fear.

Why weren't they scary? The gameplay was pure 2d beat-em-up like Final Fight. How scared can you be of the monsters when you play a huge brolic dude who spends the whole game beating the holy living christ out of them with his bare hands?

Silent Hill was scary because you run around in the dark and you're afraid and your character is kind of a fag. So you fear for your virtual life and such. That's different from gameplay that basically would function the same way with the backstory:

"The monsters at 422 Hill Lane owe Rick money. He's TOLD them about this so many times, and now he's through talking.

They left as they arrived in seperate cars, surrounded by armed bodyguards, accountants and members of The Ealing Golf Club. For the past thirteen years there have only been rumours. Derek was allgedly seen at group therapy in Malibu with Barbara Streisand.

Others claim that Derek has embraced Satanism and is living with a 12 year old in Manilla. In 1980, security cameras captured a blurred image of a caucasian male resembling Clive on a luggage carousel at Heathrow shouting obscenities. He was urging Richard Branson to start an airline - 'It can't be any *ucking worse than this one!'