cryptique Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 No, I wouldn't. What are you a fucking English professor, man?Close enough. I'm a professional writer and editor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Close enough. I'm a professional writer and editor.But are you a fucking professional writer and editor? That would be even closer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Runaway Jim Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Well that's good. I honestly envy you, as I think that sounds cool. Nonetheless, I believe you're being hard-headed on this one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
people are leaving Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Will Oldham may not be as prolific as Robert Pollard was, but he did more than most of these jokers you people are suggesting. Will is prolific and damn good.All The Falsest Hearts..../Redo the Stacks/Navigational and some of the South San Gabriel material. All top notch Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrNo Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Close enough. I'm a professional writer and editor. As another "professional," I'm gonna have to back up Cryptique on this one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Well that's good. I honestly envy you, as I think that sounds cool. Nonetheless, I believe you're being hard-headed on this one. no he isn't. he is presenting the correct definition of "prolific!" look it up! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Jesus, this thread is embarrassing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Say you had an apple tree, and it beared many, many apples. You'd say it's a prolific apple tree. Now say you had another apple tree that also beared many, many apples, but they were all rotten and sour. You'd still say that apple tree is prolific? I absolutely would not. YOU would not, but it's still prolific by definition. I've learned nothing from you and there is no need to be dickish about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tinnitus photography Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 By "prolific", all I meant (as the OP) was, "did the most", "had the most impact", "was most influential", etc. How is that so tough to decipher? yes, it's very ambiguous if you think that 'did the most' means the same thing as 'had the most impact,' esp when using the term 'prolific' as a descriptor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 abundantly inventive (one of the definitions of prolific) suggests a qualitative character. An artist could be prolific in the sense of producing a lot of work, but at the same time NOT prolific if the work was not inventive. Conversely, an artist could be prolific with one album, if that album showed an abundance of inventiveness, and at the same time NOT prolific if that was his only work in 20 years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 An artist could be prolific in the sense of producing a lot of work, but at the same time NOT prolific if the work was not inventive. Conversely, an artist could be prolific with one album, if that album showed an abundance of inventiveness, and at the same time NOT prolific if that was his only work in 20 years. Truth. And it seems now that the context of this thread, as put forth by the OP, is not the abundance of works produced by the artists but the quantity of scope of influence, or quantity of inventiveness. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Runaway Jim Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 An apple tree that produces inedible apples is not abundantly productive, therefore not prolific. So, when applied to music, an artist that produces bad music (subjective as it may be) is not abundantly productive, therefore not prolific. It's that simple TO ME. Yet you all continue to tell me I'm wrong. And the only explaination offered up as to my being wrong is either that I'm just wrong or that blue does not equal orange. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Yet you all continue to tell me I'm wrong. And the only explaination offered up as to my being wrong is either that I'm just wrong or that blue does not equal orange.That and your preference for The Departed over Infernal Affairs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 There is no "abundance of inventiveness" in one album. Maybe I can help. I have been a very prolific farter today. Lots and lots of them. Some were stinky, some were not. Some felt like I might have shit my pants, some felt very dry. Some required me to close the door to my office, some I just let fly. It is not subjective that I definitely farted a lot today, which would be the definition of prolific, regardless of the "quality" of the fart. Murderers and thieves can be prolific, although nothing they do can be considered quality. The two words have nothing to to with each other. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 There is no "abundance of inventiveness" in one album. I disagree somewhat. Are you saying that YHF and AGIB and their preceding sessions did not produce a multitude of songs with varying/varied arrangements and original approaches, unique instumentation and lyricism? Again, the OP clarified that the quantity being measured is not the artists' catalogues but rather their ideas, influence and inventiveness. The quantity being measure here is the quality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 There is no "abundance of inventiveness" in one album.Was this one of your farts? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Was this one of your facts?yes Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Guys, this is the internet. Everything is debatable. No it isn't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 No it isn't.Yes it is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 No it isn't.It clearly is. Just look at this thread. Although everyone only agrees with their point, it's still a giant debate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 It clearly is. Just look at this thread. Although everyone only agrees with their point, it's still a giant debate. I was funnin. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 perhaps the title of the thread would be better suited as "most influential artist of the 00's"???? I think that's what we're aiming for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 perhaps the title of the thread would be better suited as "most influential artist of the 00's"???? I think that's what we're aiming for.Does it bother you that much? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 perhaps the title of the thread would be better suited as "most influential artist of the 00's"???? I think that's what we're aiming for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 that's one ugly broad 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.