Gobias Industries Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 The only question is: Can this be my favorite thread AND the best thread at the same time? I'm lost, people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Can this be my favorite thread AND the best thread at the same time? Yes, but only if you keep your opinions about Michael Bay to yourself. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Runaway Jim Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Yes, but only if you keep your opinions about Michael Bay to yourself. You might be an even bigger douchebag than Good Old Neon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mpolak21 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 You might be an even bigger douchebag than Good Old Neon. I think your sense of humor might have been numbed by all that Michael Bay you've been watching. --Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 You might be an even bigger douchebag than Good Old Neon. Do you always walk around with your nerves entirely exposed, like, just fucking naked? Or, are you one of those unfortunate people born without so much as a hint of a sense of humor? The irony, is that every time you respond with shit like this, it is you who comes across as a douchebag. Note to self: there’s been an addition to the list of topics you simply DO NOT discuss in polite company. Old list: Religion Politics New list: Religion Politics The Rock and/or Michael Bay movies Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Runaway Jim Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 The irony, is that every time you respond with shit like this, it is you who comes across as a douchebag. The thing is, I don't give a fuck. I think you're a douchebag, and I told you. That's that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 The thing is, I don't give a fuck. I think you're a douchebag, and I told you. That's that. I’m beginning to think that you think that everyone and anyone who disagrees with you is a douchebag – which is maybe why you started the original post, because your friends are all douchbags, and you could no longer stand to be in their douchebaggy company – and that you were looking for allies in your war against douchbags who don’t like – The Rock. p.s. is the “Runaway” part of your screen name a reference to your temper, Jim? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Runaway Jim Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 No, I just think you're a douchebag because you unnecessarily posted something about how you can't understand how anyone could like The Rock about 5 posts after I had just said it's my favorite movie. I called you out on it, and we went back and forth a bit, and then I seemingly ended it by saying something like "you're missing out. The Rock is awesome." but you had to come back and say some dumb shit about Michael Bay movies just to get to me. That's it. That's why you're a douchebag. And Speed Racer is just being obtrusive. Making her a douchebag. I have no problem with anyone else here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PopTodd Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 "Favorite" = Completely subjective; totally personal."Best" = Based on (assumed) "objective" criteria and a critical consensus. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 And Speed Racer is just being obtrusive. Making her a douchebag. If you wanted it to be personal, you might have sent him a personal message. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 If you guys want to make fun of my favorite movie instead, I'm cool with that. It's North by Northwest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 No, I just think you're a douchebag because you unnecessarily posted something about how you can't understand how anyone could like The Rock about 5 posts after I had just said it's my favorite movie. I called you out on it, and we went back and forth a bit, and then I seemingly ended it by saying something like "you're missing out. The Rock is awesome." but you had to come back and say some dumb shit about Michael Bay movies just to get to me. That's it. That's why you're a douchebag. And Speed Racer is just being obtrusive. Making her a douchebag. I have no problem with anyone else here. Jim, let me say it again – it was a FUCKING joke. I did not insult your wife and call your kid ugly (assuming you have one or both), and Michael Bay movies do, in fact, suck. However, there’s a qualitative difference between, a.) pointing that out, and b.) insulting you, personally. You appear to be blurring that line. Update: you are not so important and/or interesting that I would go out of my way to insult and or “get to” you, well, make that prior to your recent string of invectives. We were discussing The Rock’s entertainment value, and as a result, I completed a thought regarding Michael Bay movies in general. It was not a direct, full frontal attack on Jim’s character or his theatrical tastes or lack thereof. I’ll say it again, I think your favorite movie sucks, but what I’m not saying, never did say, though am maybe now having second thoughts about, is that Jim sucks – it was never said or implied. It’s nothing personal, it’s just a sucky movie – I like sucky movies too. Edit - oh, Speed Racer is awesome, and definitely not a douchebag. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
W(TF) Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I’m still trying to recover from the shock of learning that some folks consider The Rock to be the best anything, or that folks even enjoy it a little bit. It’s hard to read the above as anything but an indirect insult by sarcasm. Having said that, Jim should grow some skin and let it go. It’s an internet forum for godssakes, and in fact if you stood in the front row at a Wilco show you’d run the risk of being humiliated in front of your peers by a similar quip from Jeff. That to me isn’t one of Jeff’s most likeable qualities, but it’s generally all in good fun and there is nothing wrong with laughing at ourselves once in a while. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Runaway Jim Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Alright, I back down guys. I do believe your original comment regarding The Rock was meant to be offensive to me. I don't buy that it was a joke. I also believe that your Michael Bay comment was meant to bait me. And I think you know that's what you were going for. And I think you'll claim, yet again, that it wasn't. And it obviously worked. However, I realize that I've gone mad with rage in this thread. Likely embarrassed myself quite a bit with my antics. But this is how I am. You say something I don't like, you are going to hear it. And if you don't like hearing it, expect to hear it again. And I'm a no-apologies kind of guy. Just talk to the asshole that smacked my girlfriends ass a couple months ago... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 But I do believe that there are practically universal standards, particularly within the bounds of one idiom or practice. I think there are no standards for quality in art. We try to pretend there are, but one can't present a logical case that the Beatles are better than the Shaggs. Or that Jackson Pollack is any better than any other artist who decides to throw paint on a canvas. Or Pollack's paintings are decidedly worse than the frescoes in the Sistene Chapel. Sure, our gut tells us all these things are true, but try to come up with stated axioms on why they are true and I think you'd run into a brick wall. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Ha, you misread that. It is the only movie I will not watch with other people. I've seen Forrest Gump well over 100 times - believe me, I watch movies alone. Ha! OK, yeah, that second "only" makes all the difference. Also: [moderator]One more reference to The Rock, Michael Bay, or douchebags in this thread, and I'm going back and deleting and/or editing all of those posts.[/moderator] Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I think there are no standards for quality in art. We try to pretend there are, but one can't present a logical case that the Beatles are better than the Shaggs. Some of the most popular universal standards can't be presented in a logical case, but that doesn't make them any less true. To take a stab at it, though, the Beatles made far more mathematically sound music, in their earliest days at the very least - predictable song structures in terms of melody and meter (apologies ahead of time for not using the appropriate terms, if that is the case), not to mention rhyme. The Shaggs are far more erratic and never quite meet pitch - when they do, they waiver quite a bit. Insofar as conforming to classic pop structure, the Beatles are most decidedly better than the Shaggs. Ha! OK, yeah, that second "only" makes all the difference. And props to you for going to the theater alone. I'm a loner for sure, but socially I find strength in packs. Trips alone is way too Us v. Them for me, except without the 'us'. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Going to the movies alone means I can see what I want, read before the lights go down, sit as close as I like, and no one bogarts the junior mints. A perfect evening out! My freshman roommate in college used to give me the face anytime I left for a solo movie trip. I think she thought I didn't have any friends, but really, I just needed a break from my friends. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Some of the most popular universal standards can't be presented in a logical case, but that doesn't make them any less true. To take a stab at it, though, the Beatles made far more mathematically sound music, in their earliest days at the very least - predictable song structures in terms of melody and meter (apologies ahead of time for not using the appropriate terms, if that is the case), not to mention rhyme. The Shaggs are far more erratic and never quite meet pitch - when they do, they waiver quite a bit. Insofar as conforming to classic pop structure, the Beatles are most decidedly better than the Shaggs. There is plenty of shitty, forgettable music that is "mathematically sound", and there is a ton of great, highly praised music that is off pitch. The entire punk music genre - "never quite meeting pitch and when they do, they waiver quite a bit" can describe the entire creative outputs of Joe Strummer, Patti Smith, and Lou Reed. Your effort is a failure. Try again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Insofar as conforming to classic pop structure... The entire punk music genre Well, first there's that. - "never quite meeting pitch and when they do, they waiver quite a bit" Joe Strummer, Patti Smith and Lou Reed all conform to classic song structures, and I think anyone would agree that their version of "waiver quite a bit" is about 2,500 yards off of the Shaggs' waivering. I'm not saying the Shaggs are good, bad, better or worse than crap on the radio that is still technically proficient, but they are mathematically worse than the Beatles. They don't tick all the boxes. I don't care if other people don't but still sound good, the Shaggs don't. That's all I'm saying. The fact that other folks DO tick all the boxes and suck, or don't and consistently make "bests" lists at VC and elsewhere, shows us that universally-accepted standards don't have to fit logical cases to be true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dude Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Well, first there's that. Well, my statement didn't really apply to subgenres. It dealt with quality of recorded music, period. Sure, the Shaggs are a horrible pop music band, but they weren't a pop music band, or even popular. Joe Strummer, Patti Smith and Lou Reed all conform to classic song structures, and I think anyone would agree that their version of "waiver quite a bit" is about 2,500 yards off of the Shaggs' waivering. I'm not saying the Shaggs are good, bad, better or worse than crap on the radio that is still technically proficient, but they are mathematically worse than the Beatles. They don't tick all the boxes. I don't care if other people don't but still sound good, the Shaggs don't. That's all I'm saying. "Mathematically worse" is a pretty specious notion that doesn't really hold any water. A good example is Pat Boone, whose recordings may be "mathetimatically" great (fuck if I know, since there aren't any mathematical formulas for this stuff, anyway), but who sings without any soul. Therefore, he is generally considered a lesser contributor to popular music than Bo Diddley, Muddy Waters, or an Otis Redding vocal performance--none of which is mathematically precise at all but has soul, emotional resonance, and is widely regarded as being way more important. If you can come up with a mathematical formula that accounts for soul, well, then, you will probably win a Nobel prize. Good luck with that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 They don't tick all the boxes. The idea of "boxes" suggests a standardized rubric, as if using a checklist is a reasonable way of assessing music. Thing is, not all boxes weigh equally--and their weights are constantly and wildly in flux, depending upon the genre, artist, album, song, or even fragments within a song. And sometimes some boxes don't apply at all. And some artists keep inventing new boxes for themselves. I think Dude is right when he says it's impossible to reduce music to math. Trying to find the science in art is a sure way of missing the art in art. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
W(TF) Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I think Dude is right when he says it's impossible to reduce music to math. Trying to find the science in art is a sure way of missing the art in art. True enough....but check out J.S. Bach sometime. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
calvino Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I met my wife seeing Casablanca so for me it is both the best and my favorite movie. My first date with my wife was a double feature at a drive-in with some other friends. We brought in some rum and cokes. The double feature was Striptease and The Rock. We all were glad we brought the rum and cokes. My favorite movie is The Hustler. I stand by it as the best, too. What the hell. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 True enough....but check out J.S. Bach sometime.Wasn't he in Skid Row? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.