do people still hear jazz?


PDA

View Full Version : do people still hear jazz?


actaderock
05-29-2008, 09:23 PM
i mean, blues is old but great, has great trumpets and pianos, great voices, great guitar rythms, i just wonder why people still hear jazz, like i mean, thats what grandparents hear...
just wondering, because velvet revolver, green day, bullet for my valentine, that is what is in.

Dimebag22
05-29-2008, 09:26 PM
What?

Jazz music takes so much talent man.

In the words of BB King:

“Jazz is the big brother of the blues. If a guy's playing blues like we play, he's in high school. When he starts playing jazz it's like going on to college, to a school of higher learning.”

Also, lots of people don't really care 'what is in' at the current moment. It's all about personal opinion there buddy.

phoenix_88
05-29-2008, 09:27 PM
yes. people still listen (i believe that's what you meant) to jazz. just because it isn't on mainstream radio doesn't mean it's not being played.

zackk
05-29-2008, 09:29 PM
yes, everyone must listen to what is "in"

IzRG350
05-29-2008, 09:33 PM
A lot of people aren't exposed to good jazz so don't listen to it.

dougydtxranger
05-29-2008, 09:35 PM
My best friend has been playing jazz piano for the past 5 years, so yeah, I do.


Oh, and I think your idea of what is "in" is a little off.

Beakwithteeth
05-29-2008, 09:38 PM
Of course they still "hear" jazz. It contains audible sound and therefore, we hear it.

Unless that person is deaf but then they wouldn't hear BFMV either. In that regard they would probably be glad they are deaf.

Dimebag22
05-29-2008, 09:41 PM
I think this kid was trying to say 'listen to jazz'. :p:

Beakwithteeth
05-29-2008, 11:05 PM
Really?!?! :rolleyes:


:p:

imgooley
05-29-2008, 11:05 PM
Jazz is a musicians music, so yeah, I listen to jazz.

It takes skill beyond normal musical comprehension to play jazz, and even more to compose it.

Me thinks this be a troll.

Beakwithteeth
05-29-2008, 11:08 PM
Doesn't give the trol vibe to me. I think he's just a huge idiot.

imgooley
05-29-2008, 11:14 PM
An idiot who, like many idiots, doesn't understand what it is that he listens to.

Beakwithteeth
05-29-2008, 11:22 PM
Yeah I wish he would come back though. I actually enjoy arguing with people that are like " LOL it's just a bunch of random notes! Slash has real talent!"

imgooley
05-29-2008, 11:30 PM
That's funny. I'm sure that's what many people would think of Giant Steps...

Beakwithteeth
05-29-2008, 11:40 PM
On the last day of school I was told the music I was listening to was "elevator music" twice by two different people at different parts of the day.

The first time I was listening to Phish (not really jazz but whatever) and the second time my friend and I were listening to some guitar jazz that idk what it was. And then a kid said the Umphrey's Mcgee sounded like arcade game music. I hate my peers.

imgooley
05-29-2008, 11:42 PM
Thank god I go to college.

Beakwithteeth
05-29-2008, 11:47 PM
:sad:



Actually it gives me a good excuse to be a condescending, pretentious douche and tell people they don't understand. :p:

imgooley
05-29-2008, 11:49 PM
I have fun doing that. I did that to my brother...

phoenix_88
05-30-2008, 12:48 AM
On the last day of school I was told the music I was listening to was "elevator music" twice by two different people at different parts of the day.

And then a kid said the Umphrey's Mcgee sounded like arcade game music. I hate my peers.

well... that's what it is.. right?
i mean it's stupid pretentious bull**** anyways.


talent?
nah. that's no fun.

imgooley
05-30-2008, 12:54 AM
well... that's what it is.. right?
i mean it's stupid pretentious bull**** anyways.


talent?
nah. that's no fun.
Scathing Fascicism is scathing

phoenix_88
05-30-2008, 01:06 AM
Fascicism

lol wut?

imgooley
05-30-2008, 01:19 AM
lol wut?
You were being facsicious, no?

phoenix_88
05-30-2008, 01:27 AM
ah. yes i was.
i thought you were calling me fascist with a couple of extra letters

(it's feciscious btw)

RedDeath9
05-30-2008, 01:29 AM
I'm trying to get into jazz. The only artists I really listen to right now though are Miles Davis, Wes Montgomery, and Kurt Rosenwinkel :(

I need moar.

imgooley
05-30-2008, 01:30 AM
Spelling BE DAMNED!

phoenix_88
05-30-2008, 11:47 AM
I'm trying to get into jazz. The only artists I really listen to right now though are Miles Davis, Wes Montgomery, and Kurt Rosenwinkel :(

I need moar.

john coltrane, charlie parker, joe pass, charlie hunter, thelonious monk

check them out sometime.

Highbinder
05-30-2008, 01:14 PM
i just wonder why people still hear jazz, like i mean, thats what grandparents hear...
just wondering, because velvet revolver, green day, bullet for my valentine, that is what is in.

With that attitude you'll never understand.

Thelonious Monk > You.

GoDrex
05-30-2008, 01:20 PM
i mean, blues is old but great, has great trumpets and pianos, great voices, great guitar rythms, i just wonder why people still hear jazz, like i mean, thats what grandparents hear...
just wondering, because velvet revolver, green day, bullet for my valentine, that is what is in.

If you open your mind you may actually find out that there's a ton of great music out there that isn't "in."

Some of it doesn't even have electric guitar (or any guitar for that matter)! WOW! Is it even possible?

ze monsta
05-30-2008, 01:25 PM
This thread should just be closed, it's almost as bad as Kris and Neil's flaming and arguing of ColdGin in the John Mayer thread. :rolleyes: So immature in here.

Dimebag22
05-30-2008, 04:22 PM
This thread should just be closed, it's almost as bad as Kris and Neil's flaming and arguing of ColdGin in the John Mayer thread. :rolleyes: So immature in here.
Why do I always get brought into that!? I only posted once! :p:

Jimmy94
05-30-2008, 04:31 PM
ah. yes i was.
i thought you were calling me fascist with a couple of extra letters

(it's feciscious btw)

you're both wrong!

facetious

one of the only words to have all five vowels in the correct order (a,e,i,o,u)

Beakwithteeth
05-30-2008, 08:23 PM
^ What a nifty fact! :p:

imgooley
05-30-2008, 08:42 PM
I am illiterate.

Axegrinder#9
06-01-2008, 08:35 PM
i mean, blues is old but great, has great trumpets and pianos, great voices, great guitar rythms, i just wonder why people still hear jazz, like i mean, thats what grandparents hear...
just wondering, because velvet revolver, green day, bullet for my valentine, that is what is in.

hey man I know what you mean, do you still listen to your dad bang the **** outta your mom every night? or some one else's mom?

have a nice day :)

Beakwithteeth
06-01-2008, 08:40 PM
^ :confused:

What are you talking about?

phoenix_88
06-01-2008, 09:33 PM
you're both wrong!

facetious

one of the only words to have all five vowels in the correct order (a,e,i,o,u)

well ****. my google dictionary failed me lol.

imgooley
06-01-2008, 09:36 PM
^It failed me too.

Jimmy94
06-01-2008, 10:22 PM
webster's works pretty well for me ;)

imgooley
06-01-2008, 10:27 PM
^Online?

I couldn't find it anywhere, and I looked.

Dimebag22
06-01-2008, 10:30 PM
^Online?

I couldn't find it anywhere, and I looked.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

That?

imgooley
06-01-2008, 10:32 PM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/

That?
The word, you facetious little bastard!

jpmorgan
06-01-2008, 10:32 PM
It's just a personal preference thing. If you like the sound of jazz, cool, if not, cool. It's always good to learn all of these different genres. Most of the best guitarists nowadays attribute jazz to helping them get better. I've been playing rock/metal for years, and I felt that I was pretty good, but when I started trying jazz, I found out how much work I needed.

It's all good though. If you don't like it, don't listen to it.

Jimmy94
06-01-2008, 10:41 PM
^Online?

I couldn't find it anywhere, and I looked.

haha no, I mean the actual honest to god paper dictionary :p:

imgooley
06-01-2008, 10:42 PM
haha no, I mean the actual honest to god paper dictionary :p:
That's what I thought. All my dictionaries are 500 miles away.

Highbinder
06-02-2008, 01:48 AM
Wow when did this become the Blues&Vocabulary sub forum? Can anyone spelt 'thread derailment' ?

/e: but tbh there wasn't much going for the original topic at hand so rock on ;)

imgooley
06-02-2008, 01:53 AM
^Nearly all the blues forum threads become chat threads anyway. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Highbinder
06-02-2008, 09:57 AM
Aye but usually the derailments are ones loosely based on blues/jazz.

Axegrinder#9
06-02-2008, 01:58 PM
It's all good though. If you don't like it, don't listen to it.

I think we're past the point here when we can just cop out under cover of relativism. For sure it's the easy way out to prevent conflict - but just as one must speak out against bad politics; we must speak out against bad music.

musicians are in a way prophets - to see a band swinging really hard and in that moment, really is showing the audience and engaging the audience in, a higher form of communication. what most commercial music does, is primarily juxtapose bad poetry with methodical formulaic melodic content. what that achieves thus, is a short-cut to thinking, an eternity of failed communication, specifically engineered by the record industry to keep the money machine rolling.

jazz for instance, or indian classical music, or afro-beat, which is often governed by improvisation presents to us an opportunity to shed the layers of mediation which come between music and the musicians and access that x-zone of intrinsic non-dual experience - same thing when you have sex with someone who you have a deep connection with...

but please realize that copping out and saying, if you don't like it, don't listen to it, in the court of aesthetics you're guilty for perpetuating genocide.

i'm assuming that no one will really get what I'm trying to say here, but what the hell...

Resiliance
06-02-2008, 09:53 PM
I think we're past the point here when we can just cop out under cover of relativism. For sure it's the easy way out to prevent conflict - but just as one must speak out against bad politics; we must speak out against bad music.

musicians are in a way prophets - to see a band swinging really hard and in that moment, really is showing the audience and engaging the audience in, a higher form of communication. what most commercial music does, is primarily juxtapose bad poetry with methodical formulaic melodic content. what that achieves thus, is a short-cut to thinking, an eternity of failed communication, specifically engineered by the record industry to keep the money machine rolling.

jazz for instance, or indian classical music, or afro-beat, which is often governed by improvisation presents to us an opportunity to shed the layers of mediation which come between music and the musicians and access that x-zone of intrinsic non-dual experience - same thing when you have sex with someone who you have a deep connection with...

but please realize that copping out and saying, if you don't like it, don't listen to it, in the court of aesthetics you're guilty for perpetuating genocide.

i'm assuming that no one will really get what I'm trying to say here, but what the hell...

There is no bad music. You're the one threatenng genocide with that kind of thinking.

There is no cover of relativism. Music is relative.

So with that logic... Look carefully, you won't see me do this often.

GTFO.

Jimmy94
06-02-2008, 10:26 PM
Everything is relative, but that doesn't mean you can't look at a car and guess it's going around 70 miles an hour compared to a walking person. In the same way you can compare Beethoven to Britney Spears and say that Britney is crap.

destroy_techno
06-02-2008, 10:28 PM
velvet revolver, green day, bullet for my valentine, that is what is in.
Why would I care what's 'in'?

Jazz is great

Axegrinder#9
06-03-2008, 01:00 AM
There is no bad music. You're the one threatenng genocide with that kind of thinking.

There is no cover of relativism. Music is relative.

So with that logic... Look carefully, you won't see me do this often.

GTFO.

really there is no bad music? so basically let's put Coltrane and Justin Timberlake on the same level, and their music has equal aesthetic value. if that sits with you well, you truly must be enlightened enough to have an over arching all encompassing view on music, as being all equal.

seriously man, you need a reality check. get out of your conservatory and get a better grip on life, and I don't mean that in an essentially mean or derogatory sense - but as a suggestion. cos I think you know that your music is relativism theory is full of ****.

Highbinder
06-03-2008, 01:49 AM
I think we're past the point here when we can just cop out under cover of relativism. For sure it's the easy way out to prevent conflict - but just as one must speak out against bad politics; we must speak out against bad music.

musicians are in a way prophets - to see a band swinging really hard and in that moment, really is showing the audience and engaging the audience in, a higher form of communication. what most commercial music does, is primarily juxtapose bad poetry with methodical formulaic melodic content. what that achieves thus, is a short-cut to thinking, an eternity of failed communication, specifically engineered by the record industry to keep the money machine rolling.

jazz for instance, or indian classical music, or afro-beat, which is often governed by improvisation presents to us an opportunity to shed the layers of mediation which come between music and the musicians and access that x-zone of intrinsic non-dual experience - same thing when you have sex with someone who you have a deep connection with...

but please realize that copping out and saying, if you don't like it, don't listen to it, in the court of aesthetics you're guilty for perpetuating genocide.

i'm assuming that no one will really get what I'm trying to say here, but what the hell...

Great post. And.. umm.. you seem to deserve your user title ;) heh heh

imgooley
06-03-2008, 02:27 AM
what that achieves thus, is a short-cut to thinking, an eternity of failed communication
That is a great statement. I believe that was part of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's philosophy that he laid down in Biographia Literaria

Axegrinder#9
06-03-2008, 03:19 AM
yeah man I was trying to lay this down at the shred forum, from a different point of view. did not go well - poor bastards over there need to hit up a few spliffs y'know what I'm saying? ;)

imgooley
06-03-2008, 03:23 AM
Actually I don't, but a nice cold one does the trick just as well.

Resiliance
06-03-2008, 07:01 AM
really there is no bad music? so basically let's put Coltrane and Justin Timberlake on the same level, and their music has equal aesthetic value. if that sits with you well, you truly must be enlightened enough to have an over arching all encompassing view on music, as being all equal.

Yeah, really. Let's do that.

For me personally, Justin Timberlake sucks and Coltrane's pretty good. Does that mean Justin Timberlake sucks and Coltrane's pretty good? No... That means that's my opinion.

I'm pretty sure someone somewhere thinks the exact opposite. Is he wrong? No. Am I? No. This, my friend, is the most beautiful part of music. It's too bad you're too dead-set in your astoundingly elitist, arrogant ways to partake.

To claim there is any kind of objective value, fact, let alone truth to be made from music is completely absurd. If you claim to be able to judge what music has greater aesthetic value, it is most definitely you who needs a realilty check. I simply cannot fathom the immensely large ego, narcissism, narrowmindedness and arrogance required to hold such a belief.

seriously man, you need a reality check. get out of your conservatory and get a better grip on life, and I don't mean that in an essentially mean or derogatory sense - but as a suggestion. cos I think you know that your music is relativism theory is full of ****.

How about you actually respond to what I'm saying, instead of spouting a bunch of cheap ad hominems like you seem to do every time I respond to one of your posts.

Axegrinder#9
06-03-2008, 12:50 PM
Yeah, really. Let's do that.

For me personally, Justin Timberlake sucks and Coltrane's pretty good. Does that mean Justin Timberlake sucks and Coltrane's pretty good? No... That means that's my opinion.

I'm pretty sure someone somewhere thinks the exact opposite. Is he wrong? No. Am I? No. This, my friend, is the most beautiful part of music. It's too bad you're too dead-set in your astoundingly elitist, arrogant ways to partake.

To claim there is any kind of objective value, fact, let alone truth to be made from music is completely absurd. If you claim to be able to judge what music has greater aesthetic value, it is most definitely you who needs a realilty check. I simply cannot fathom the immensely large ego, narcissism, narrowmindedness and arrogance required to hold such a belief.

How about you actually respond to what I'm saying, instead of spouting a bunch of cheap ad hominems like you seem to do every time I respond to one of your posts.


haha c'mon man, why are you putting yourself through this kind of embarrassment to prove a point that is completely invalid. Me claiming that certain kind of music has a higher aesthetic value, is NOT testimony to my ego as you would put it, but merely my adherence to certain ideas that I have realized for myself.

there's no way I can make that realization for you, that self-awareness must come from within, so until then you can lie to yourself, and be comfortable with it. And if you get yourself to come down from your cultivated high seat which UG has bestowed upon you, and actually care to comprehend what I wrote in my first post, and pause to think about it, maybe we'll actually achieve some communication here.

Jimmy94
06-03-2008, 01:01 PM
Are you seriously trying to say that an hour of white noise is objectively the same as Debussy? Seriously just shut up, if you're going to take a 100% scientific mind toward music then you shouldn't be listening to it in the first place.

null
06-03-2008, 01:07 PM
Hey...if music, no matter what kind, makes somebody feel good, then is it really bad music?
Chill out people, listen to whatever.
John Coltrane FTW!

tito5877
06-03-2008, 01:55 PM
Miles Davis said that there are two types of music. Good and Bad. Listen to the good.

John Cage wrote a song called 4'33. Its the sound of a pianist sitting at a grand piano for 4 minutes and 33 secs.

Its a song.

Its just as much a song as any Beethoven piece or any Justin Timberlake piece.

Music does different things to different people. Some people dig it in elevators and as background music at dinner partys. Great. Thats fantastic. To say that that person is enjoying music more or less than any one else is impossable.

To that extent, Brian Eno wanted to make an album of 'background music.' His intent was to make music that people wound't listen to, but would do other things to. So he called it Music For Airports because he wanted it to be played at airports so no one would listen, but everyone would hear.

That was the birth of ambient music.

Music does different things to different people.

The ironic thing is, if anyone of us in this newsgroup ever meet any of the studio cats that played on Justin Timberlakes album, we would be blown away by thier musical talents. Those guys rip. Same with all the pop in the world today. If you listen to the music and not the image, its a lot different picture. Songs that you might think are crap are really pretty good. (I can't stop listening to Mariah Careys, Dreamlover-thats song is f-fantastic) and songs that you may think are great turn out to be pretty dull and lifeless.

Stop thinking and listen.

GoDrex
06-03-2008, 06:22 PM
you've got some of your details a bit off - but the point is right on...

Axegrinder#9
06-03-2008, 06:26 PM
The ironic thing is, if anyone of us in this newsgroup ever meet any of the studio cats that played on Justin Timberlakes album, we would be blown away by thier musical talents. Those guys rip. Same with all the pop in the world today. If you listen to the music and not the image, its a lot different picture. Songs that you might think are crap are really pretty good. (I can't stop listening to Mariah Careys, Dreamlover-thats song is f-fantastic) and songs that you may think are great turn out to be pretty dull and lifeless.

Stop thinking and listen.

I don't think anybody is in denial of the fact that the studio musicians who back up pop artists are real hot cats when it comes to playing, but what they do doesn't necessarily reflect their musical abilities, and it's not even relevant within this context. the music that is produced is still the same, and doesn't elevate itself merely on account of high production value. INDEED, the reason pop music is where it is at, apart from the marketing is primarily BECAUSE of how good the production values are.

Take Paul Simon's "Graceland" for instance. I really don't know how many copies that album has sold, more than I could probably guess at. Look at the musicians playing on it, a guy like Steve Gadd on drums. But does that take away an inch from what Paul Simon can be held guilty of?

He appropriated the south african thumb piano music, polished and cleaned it up so it would be avidly lapped up by a culturally deprived American mainstream audience, and released an album whereby which he made immeasurable profit. And what about the South African traditional thumb piano musicians? Well they are losing their livelihood because some capitalist bastard perverted their sound to be presentable to a western audience, and now since the majority of the world's music is consumed and produced in the US, those musicians have to abandon their own musical roots and play thumb piano according to how the western audience wants it.

Paul Simon would be sentenced to death in a court of aesthetics for perpetuating such kind of cultural genocide. Entire genres of traditional music has been killed because of the capitalist record industry.

So don't ****ing put all music on the same plate, the only thing that achieves, for people who believe that, is displaying their own deliberate ignorance, and the desire to pursue music merely as an art in itself; which of course is the biggest load of bull**** (mind you the irony is that only the most skilled musicians are able to convince themselves of that ideal).

Axegrinder#9
06-03-2008, 06:37 PM
Hey...if music, no matter what kind, makes somebody feel good, then is it really bad music?
Chill out people, listen to whatever.
John Coltrane FTW!

because then we are complicit to the calculated murder of everything that good art stands for - improvisation, poetry, and the work of art engaging itself and it's subject in an honest open dialog with its audience.

uhm, let's see according what Resi suggests, we should therefore say that Coltrane's playing on say Meditations, achieves the same artistic goal as does the Dashboard Confessionals whining about lost love, and cutting themselves.

of course now, the predictable response is, who am I to define what good art is? Point noted, but if we are to go with the "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" philosophy, why stop suicide bombers from blowing up foreign embassies?

that's right, cos music is music, politics is politics, business is business :rolleyes:

slidething31
06-03-2008, 08:43 PM
because then we are complicit to the calculated murder of everything that good art stands for - improvisation, poetry, and the work of art engaging itself and it's subject in an honest open dialog with its audience.

uhm, let's see according what Resi suggests, we should therefore say that Coltrane's playing on say Meditations, achieves the same artistic goal as does the Dashboard Confessionals whining about lost love, and cutting themselves.

of course now, the predictable response is, who am I to define what good art is? Point noted, but if we are to go with the "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" philosophy, why stop suicide bombers from blowing up foreign embassies?

that's right, cos music is music, politics is politics, business is business :rolleyes:
I somewhat agreed with you on your first few posts. But now you're starting to get a little out there.

Firstly, I don't believe that you can apply a standard set of artistic goals to multiple pieces of art. So you certainly can't judge if they are achieved.

Second, I would change your last quote to politics is politics, business is business, and music i business. Music is a business. All music that is recorded commercially, such as Coltrane, Justin Timberlake, Jimi Hendrix or Britney Spears, is recorded with financial goals in mind. Artistic goals are generally, if even present at all, secondary.

So, really, just let people listen to what they want. Bitching about Britney Spears is not going to make her go away, or prevent the next pop star from becoming big.

So please, save your breath.

gopherthegreat
06-03-2008, 10:26 PM
really there is no bad music? so basically let's put Coltrane and Justin Timberlake on the same level, and their music has equal aesthetic value. if that sits with you well, you truly must be enlightened enough to have an over arching all encompassing view on music, as being all equal.

seriously man, you need a reality check. get out of your conservatory and get a better grip on life, and I don't mean that in an essentially mean or derogatory sense - but as a suggestion. cos I think you know that your music is relativism theory is full of ****.
you use false analogies, and your own musical opinions passed off as facts to prove points. so seriously, GTFO. now. music is relative. i think ynqwie malmsteens music is shit. i dont pass it off as fact and pretend to be a fucking scientist trying to prove its bad. i realize its an opinion.

Jimmy94
06-04-2008, 12:05 AM
by definition when you say music is relative you are also saying that it can be compared to other types of music as better or worse.

Axegrinder#9
06-04-2008, 12:23 AM
you use false analogies.

fail. if music is all relative, and aesthetic values are matters of opinion, that analogy is perfectly valid. and stop using those stupid forum acronyms guys, it's not cool man.

null
06-04-2008, 01:28 AM
Good music will never die out, as long as there are intuitive musicians out there. It will exist, all of this percieved 'bad music' will not make 'good music' extinct, if somebody finds some form of worth in the subtext of good music, it will exist. Nothing's gonna take this **** away, so stop thinking that what you think carries any completely absolute truth and just focus on what you feel is 'good music'. I still hear jazz, mother****er

Axegrinder#9
06-04-2008, 02:51 AM
Good music will never die out, as long as there are intuitive musicians out there. It will exist, all of this percieved 'bad music' will not make 'good music' extinct, if somebody finds some form of worth in the subtext of good music, it will exist. Nothing's gonna take this **** away, so stop thinking that what you think carries any completely absolute truth and just focus on what you feel is 'good music'. I still hear jazz, mother****er

wha? get a grip.

imgooley
06-04-2008, 02:56 AM
People have different opinions about music. You don't have to respect them, but don't expect to change them.



I think it's time to add an /thread to this one.

Stratwizard
06-04-2008, 05:02 AM
those musicians have to abandon their own musical roots and play thumb piano according to how the western audience wants it.

Boo-****ing-hoo! Of course they do; that's something called supply and demand. Ever heard of it?

Paul Simon would be sentenced to death in a court of aesthetics for perpetuating such kind of cultural genocide. Entire genres of traditional music has been killed because of the capitalist record industry.

Damn... This is some hilarious ****. :haha

So don't ****ing put all music on the same plate, the only thing that achieves, for people who believe that, is displaying their own deliberate ignorance, aend the desire to pursue music merely as an art in itself; which of course is the biggest load of bull**** (mind you the irony is that only the most skilled musicians are able to convince themselves of that ideal).

This whole "court of aesthetics" -mentality has really crooked your views. What makes you think you're in position to decide what is good or bad or has more aesthetic value?

because then we are complicit to the calculated murder of everything that good art stands for - improvisation, poetry, and the work of art engaging itself and it's subject in an honest open dialog with its audience.

Why is it so hard to understand that all those qualities you listed there are merely your opinions? You seem like a little child who is yet to know that the world isn't black and white. Stop preaching your opinions as gospel, it only makes you look like a fool. Especially when you make very little sense.

uhm, let's see according what Resi suggests, we should therefore say that Coltrane's playing on say Meditations, achieves the same artistic goal as does the Dashboard Confessionals whining about lost love, and cutting themselves.

What do you know about anyone's artistic goals? These kind of statements only demonstrate your own ignorance.

of course now, the predictable response is, who am I to define what good art is? Point noted, but if we are to go with the "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" philosophy, why stop suicide bombers from blowing up foreign embassies?


We stop suicide bombers blowing up embassies, because that's something we think is right. On the other hand, though, I'm certain that the suicide bombers also think that they're doing the right thing. Why else would they do that? Nobody in this world deliberately tries to be bad however they choose to define it, which leads to a very obvious conclusion; absolute good or bad don't exist.

You know what's so funny about this? If you take your fancy words off your posts, you're nothing more than a little kid trying to convince why your favourite band is better than anyone else's. Also, why don't you try to give people reasonable replies instead of replying with "get a grip".

phoenix_88
06-04-2008, 12:02 PM
I don't understand what's so bad about Paul Simon making incredibly good, engaging, and entertaining music. I have enjoyed songs from Paul Simon and Justin Timberlake more than a song from John Coltrane, and the opposite applies. Nobody has any right to decide what others should listen to, and commercial success does not dictate good or bad, or wrong or right.

Get off your high horse, and please realize that repeated phrases with big words don't make your points any more valid or convincing.

Axegrinder#9
06-04-2008, 12:38 PM
Boo-****ing-hoo! Of course they do; that's something called supply and demand. Ever heard of it? .

yeah I'm sure being a teenaged kid in some part of Europe where your mommy and daddy got you a JEM to play a botched up version of Yngwie's "Far Beyond the Sun", helps you to have that kind of mentality. you do realize what you just said, you are condoning what the capitalist industry does - so you by default are also OK with underage child-workers in third world countries who manufacture goods that are sold at Wal-Mart - I mean "boo-****ing-hoo", supply and demand?

We stop suicide bombers blowing up embassies, because that's something we think is right. On the other hand, though, I'm certain that the suicide bombers also think that they're doing the right thing. Why else would they do that? Nobody in this world deliberately tries to be bad however they choose to define it, which leads to a very obvious conclusion; absolute good or bad don't exist.

You know what's so funny about this? If you take your fancy words off your posts, you're nothing more than a little kid trying to convince why your favourite band is better than anyone else's. Also, why don't you try to give people reasonable replies instead of replying with "get a grip".

so it's ok to have a double standard on morality when people are being killed yeah? It's ok to believe we've got it the moral self-righteous right to stop terrorists, when you just admitted our morality is a matter of opinion. So troops in Iraq, and 9/11 are all matters of opinion. Right. Absolute good and bad don't exist, ya? ****. Why stop 'em then? who gave us the right? no good music or bad music? you got it


I won't bother replying more to your post, because you're an idiot to hasn't really understood what I'm trying to say. All your responses have been centered around the idea that "music IS relative" - and since you are a slave to that kind of thinking, it's predictably hard to break out of it. And I think I know that YOU'RE the kid here?

so in the words of the song immortalized by the South Park episode, carry on my wayward son...

Psychedelico
06-04-2008, 12:46 PM
haha c'mon man, why are you putting yourself through this kind of embarrassment to prove a point that is completely invalid. Me claiming that certain kind of music has a higher aesthetic value, is NOT testimony to my ego as you would put it, but merely my adherence to certain ideas that I have realized for myself.

there's no way I can make that realization for you, that self-awareness must come from within, so until then you can lie to yourself, and be comfortable with it. And if you get yourself to come down from your cultivated high seat which UG has bestowed upon you, and actually care to comprehend what I wrote in my first post, and pause to think about it, maybe we'll actually achieve some communication here.

Let's start with the first bold passage. Buddy, you are the one that is embarrassing yourself by deluding yourself into thinking that music is not relative and the tech death/intensely complex jazz/classical music that you listen to is the best, when in fact... it's not. You know why? Because there is no best.

To address your blathering that music is not relative, you've even admitted yourself that it is. You said blah dee blah "my adherence to certain ideas that I have realized for myself." You've realized FOR YOURSELF. This means that you have found the music that YOU find aesthetically pleasing.

You keep on talking about aesthetics. Do you even know what the definition of aesthetic is?

Aesthetic = Beautiful. Look it up. Now let's go from a visual perspective. Hypothetically let's say that I find Carmen Electra hot. You don't. Continuing hypothetically, because you don't like her large breasts, you like small ones. Can somebody say that one type is better than the other? No, they can't, because that is a personal choice. Like music tastes.

Now could you kindly shut the fuck up?

Axegrinder#9
06-04-2008, 12:49 PM
I don't understand what's so bad about Paul Simon making incredibly good, engaging, and entertaining music.

that's the **** up ain't it? 'cos it IS engaging and entertaining. but man read the previous few posts of mine, if you really got what I was trying to say you wouldn't ask this question. but let me give another example.

look at the advent of smooth jazz - why bash Kenny G? Aren't his records engaging and entertaining? You ask me, they sound well pleasing to my ears. Great background music at a cocktail party, and he's sold quite a few records. so what's so bad about Kenny G making incredibly good, engaging and entertaining music?

Axegrinder#9
06-04-2008, 12:51 PM
To address your blathering that music is not relative, you've even admitted yourself that it is. You said blah dee blah "my adherence to certain ideas that I have realized for myself." You've realized FOR YOURSELF. This means that you have found the music that YOU find aesthetically pleasing.

nope you got it wrong. what I realized for myself was the exact opposite of what you just said, so don't put words in my mouth (well or posts in this case). and jeez you guys are really going through a lotta trouble putting the expletives in there... :rolleyes:

You keep on talking about aesthetics. Do you even know what the definition of aesthetic is?

Aesthetic = Beautiful.

from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, aesthetics are defined as:
1. plural but sing or plural in constr : a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty

uhmmm maybe spending less alone time with yourself, and a picture of carmen electra will help next time you post ;)

Jimmy94
06-04-2008, 01:14 PM
I just can't understand people saying music is relative, much less that good and bad is relative. Do you really think that because terrorists think they're doing the right thing that terrorism can be condoned? What about child molestation? Back to music, do you think you know better than Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Debussy, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, The Beatles, Johnny Cash, Joe Satriani and thousands of other musicians that have explicitly stated that there is good music and bad music?

People can listen to whatever they want, I don't care. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as bad music.

Axegrinder#9
06-04-2008, 01:24 PM
Back to music, do you think you know better than Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Debussy, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, The Beatles, Johnny Cash, Joe Satriani and thousands of other musicians that have explicitly stated that there is good music and bad music?

i believe the fine gentlemen who've posted before me, are very confident in their abilities as musicians and their understanding of music and the role it plays. they certainly seem to know better, given their brute force approach to refuting my posts unanimously in the same way... let it go dude, they won't change their stance 'cos they are committed to proving a point now...

Stratwizard
06-04-2008, 01:24 PM
yeah I'm sure being a teenaged kid in some part of Europe where your mommy and daddy got you a JEM to play a botched up version of Yngwie's "Far Beyond the Sun", helps you to have that kind of mentality.

That's pretty low - even for you. Not to mention how ridiculous it is to resort ad hominems such as this, you should even get your facts straight.

you do realize what you just said, you are condoning what the capitalist industry does - so you by default are also OK with underage child-workers in third world countries who manufacture goods that are sold at Wal-Mart - I mean "boo-****ing-hoo", supply and demand?


You're making no sense here. In this context, underage children working in factories aren't relevant. You can drop that hypocrite act right there, it doesn't suit you.

so it's ok to have a double standard on morality when people are being killed yeah? It's ok to believe we've got it the moral self-righteous right to stop terrorists, when you just admitted our morality is a matter of opinion.

Stopping terrorists is considered right by most of the western world. However, I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, many people just think that way. That, of course, doesn't make it an absolute right thing. Who knows what's right and wrong? Terrorists are freedom fighters for some people. Haven't you already realised these things yourself? It's not too complicated to understand that world ain't black and white.

So troops in Iraq, and 9/11 are all matters of opinion. Right. Absolute good and bad don't exist, ya? ****. Why stop 'em then? who gave us the right? no good music or bad music? you got it

We all have our own ideas of good and bad, but yes, no absolute good or bad exist. Or of course if you can show me what's absolute good or bad, I'm waiting. And no, Justin Timberlake's music doesn't suffice as bad music, because I like it and so do a lot of other people too. Who are you to tell them that's it's bad?

I won't bother replying more to your post, because you're an idiot to hasn't really understood what I'm trying to say.

Oh yes, once again a great reply. Maybe if you tried to reply reasonably I could try to understand what you're trying to say. I'm an open minded person but you have to convince me, and thus far, you haven't really said anything profound, fresh or convincing.

All your responses have been centered around the idea that "music IS relative" - and since you are a slave to that kind of thinking, it's predictably hard to break out of it.

I'm slave to that kind of thinking that world isn't black and white, therefore I don't think there's good and bad music; there's just music I like and music I dislike, but I don't go around blabbering about the higher aesthetic values of some style of music.

And I think I know that YOU'RE the kid here?

If I'm the kid, why are you the only one acting like kid?

Stratwizard
06-04-2008, 01:31 PM
I just can't understand people saying music is relative, much less that good and bad is relative. Do you really think that because terrorists think they're doing the right thing that terrorism can be condoned? What about child molestation?

Who here has talked anything about condoning terrorism or child molestation? Furthermore, how can you be so sure that your ideas of right and wrong or the whole concept of reality aren't the ones that are sick and twisted? What if child molestation or terrorism are actually good things?

GoDrex
06-04-2008, 01:32 PM
look at the advent of smooth jazz - why bash Kenny G? Aren't his records engaging and entertaining? You ask me, they sound well pleasing to my ears. Great background music at a cocktail party, and he's sold quite a few records. so what's so bad about Kenny G making incredibly good, engaging and entertaining music?

made me think of this:

http://www.jazzoasis.com/methenyonkennyg.htm - Pat Metheny on Kenny G - good read

Jimmy94
06-04-2008, 01:39 PM
Who here has talked anything about condoning terrorism or child molestation? Furthermore, how can you be so sure that your ideas of right and wrong or the whole concept of reality aren't the ones that are sick and twisted? What if child molestation or terrorism are actually good things?

Are you serious you can not be serious.

MastaBassist10
06-04-2008, 02:24 PM
My ears actually turn off when miles davis comes on.

Jimmy94
06-04-2008, 03:27 PM
That's funny, because listening to your music it's easy to tell you owe a lot to miles.

gopherthegreat
06-04-2008, 03:50 PM
why should we listen to joe satriani? i hate him. i guess hes just flat out bad music.

Muzikh
06-04-2008, 04:03 PM
Why should we listen to them? I hate Joe Satriani. I suppose he's just flat out bad music.
You should listen to John Coltrane, especially if you want to look like you came from here:
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3820/100000691sb8.jpg

..and give people the impression that you look like this:
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3784/noirdetective1eh3.jpg

null
06-04-2008, 04:16 PM
People...stop this silliness. Music is there to be enjoyed, above everything else. Why quarrel over things as trivial as something that is ultimately just personal musical taste? Something that you don't enjoy listening to, I like, and vice versa. That's what all these different sections in the forum are for. It's all about enjoyment, people, so ENJOY yourselves instead of plaguing this forum with arrogant thoughts.
I just discovered Charles Mingus today. What a crazy mofo.

gopherthegreat
06-04-2008, 04:23 PM
im actually kind of seeing axes point now........

Jimmy94
06-04-2008, 04:25 PM
you know what I just had a great idea. I'll be a contractor that does one hour of work throwing paint all over people's houses. When they tell me I did a bad job I'll tell them that's only their perception of bad.

Jimmy94
06-04-2008, 04:26 PM
Then I'll take a **** in a can and tell everyone it's a pony. And who's going to tell me it's not a pony? That's just my concept of reality!

Muzikh
06-04-2008, 04:31 PM
I'm actually kind of seeing axes point now...

He seemed pretty bitter and nonsensical.
He aught to listen to more Debussy.
Also, if anybody has listened to her, Keiko Matsui is an excellent listen for anybody interested in atmospheric piano jazz.

Muzikh
06-04-2008, 04:34 PM
Also, a new thread should be created for everybody who wants to argue semantics. A jazz thread is no place for that.

Muzikh
06-04-2008, 04:38 PM
You know what I just had a great idea. I'll be a contractor that does one hour of work throwing paint all over people's houses. When they tell me I did a bad job I'll tell them that's only their perception of bad.
Sadly, those people do exist. We reffer to them as: Flakes

Zappa did a number on them in the album Sheik Yerbouti with the song, obviously, "Flakes"

Axegrinder#9
06-04-2008, 05:54 PM
He seemed pretty bitter and nonsensical.

if you actually bother to read through all my posts, with a lil' more equanimity of mind, maybe you'll atleast comprehend what I'm saying.

but damn right I'm bitter about it. but someone's gotta keep it real and ugly you know? I'd rather be that person, instead of subscribing to the falsehood of relativism.

gopherthegreat
06-04-2008, 05:56 PM
even though im undecided on the topic now, i want you to prove that john coltrane is better music than, lets say, micheal jackson?

phoenix_88
06-04-2008, 06:14 PM
wow. this thread is full of people with their heads up their asses.

moral wrong and right and aesthetics have nothing to do with one another. moral values, ie war, terrorism, etc. have no wrong and right. there are some widely accepted values, but there is no universal wrong or right, but there's nobody here condoning or trying to justify any terrorism or anything of the sort.

as for aesthetics, there's also no universal good or bad. there are plenty of people who can listen to Bitches Brew by Miles Davis and think that it's random noise.

He appropriated the south african thumb piano music, polished and cleaned it up so it would be avidly lapped up by a culturally deprived American mainstream audience, and released an album whereby which he made immeasurable profit. And what about the South African traditional thumb piano musicians? Well they are losing their livelihood because some capitalist bastard perverted their sound to be presentable to a western audience, and now since the majority of the world's music is consumed and produced in the US, those musicians have to abandon their own musical roots and play thumb piano according to how the western audience wants it.

So don't ****ing put all music on the same plate, the only thing that achieves, for people who believe that, is displaying their own deliberate ignorance, and the desire to pursue music merely as an art in itself

I personally think Paul Simon heard something new that he liked, and incorporated it into his own playing and music... Oh god, borrowing from influences? Not only is that uncommon, it's pretty much the entire basis of jazz. And if he "cleaned it up so it would be avidly lapped up by a culturally deprived American mainstream audience", I doubt you were at the recording sessions, and I doubt even more that you ARE Paul Simon, so shut the **** up, you don't know any of that for fact.

I have no clue what you were trying to say with that last statement, because music is art. And more than that, music is entertainment. It's meant to entertain, and if it does that for anyone, then it has succeeded at being music and art.

I agree that I don't hold Fall Out Boy and Coltrane to the same level, and I personally don't enjoy Fall Out Boy's music at all, but I know plenty of people who do, and therefore, I, and nobody else, have no right to say that those artists are on separate levels. There are no universal levels of right and wrong or good and bad, only personal ones. So get your head out of your ass, expand your musical interests, and try and cut your ego down a notch.

Axegrinder#9
06-04-2008, 07:13 PM
I personally think Paul Simon heard something new that he liked, and incorporated it into his own playing and music... Oh god, borrowing from influences? Not only is that uncommon, it's pretty much the entire basis of jazz. And if he "cleaned it up so it would be avidly lapped up by a culturally deprived American mainstream audience", I doubt you were at the recording sessions, and I doubt even more that you ARE Paul Simon, so shut the **** up, you don't know any of that for fact.

haha well I have actually heard what a south african thumb piano sounds like, and it's nothing like how it was used in the Graceland album, so damn right I have every right to say what I'm saying. I'm well aware of "borrowing" within the musical traditions - it is indeed a necessary part of the music, and has happened every where, in different genres and across different musical traditions - however that doesn't give someone a right to copy the sound from another culture, dilute it and strip it away from its cultural roots, and juxtapose it within a commercial musical context. so **** paul simon for doing that ****.
when Coltrane recorded Meditations or even My Favorite Things, he cautiously forays into Indian classical modal improvisation, but he didn't try and appropriate it within a traditional jazz context - he went "out there" and embraced Indian classical based improvisation, fused it within his jazz vocabulary, and owing to his prodigious technique was thus spontaneously able to create a new sound, a new vocabulary, a new language...
John McLaughlin has gone to the point of studying the South Indian Carnatic rhythmic system of konakal and has applied it to his playing since his Mahavishnu days, and indeed what he achieved with Shakti for instance, was creating a new musical experience where he fused not only the musical traditions of east and west, but also the traditions of north indian and south indian music. His playing speaks volumes about his "appropriation" of Indian classical improvisation; within his moment of playing creates his own contact zone where all these different traditions meet, and it his mastery over the guitar that allows him to exist and live within that island moment of musical dialog.

Now, how's that different from say Bryan Adams having a guitar player like Paco de Lucia play guitar on "Have you ever really loved a woman"? or Kenny G playing over a Louis Armstrong record? Apparently none - because they have every right to do that, and since music is all relative, it doesn't matter because people love that sound yeah? flamenco guitar playing thrown into one of the worst examples of bad poetry set to song, or tuning into the smooth jazz station... and of course, this is all ok, since it's all relative yea?

I have no clue what you were trying to say with that last statement, because music is art. And more than that, music is entertainment. It's meant to entertain, and if it does that for anyone, then it has succeeded at being music and art.

so as opposed to the musician trying to communicate something deep and personal to the external world, by his instrument and music - you're are saying it is more like the musician just thinking about what would make for a catchy tune so some teenaged mutant (nope not Ninja turtle) could bop along while chewing gum and thinking about going to the mall to pick up the X-box. okie dokie

man, you guys keep coming back with the same refutations and dig a deeper hole for yourselves. the only reason that I'm bothering to reply is because I actually have a little more faith in the musical maturity and understanding of people here, than in the shred forum - and while those kids over there have no damn clue, I'd think people here would be a lil' more tuned in... ah well

Jimmy94
06-04-2008, 07:31 PM
Relativism, more appropriately known as retardism, is the belief that everything is relative. That's at least what some think. Others think that relativism is a pile of horse droppings. Well -- that's their standpoint. Anyway, every relativist is against objective science since that which is said to be objective is just a standpoint amongst others. But then, on the other side, this is just a standpoint, so relativists cannot exclude the possible existence of an objective standpoint without becoming objectivists themselves -- and that really sucks. Relatively.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Axegrinder#9
06-04-2008, 07:39 PM
;)

Muzikh
06-04-2008, 08:01 PM
Even though I'm undecided on the topic now, I want you to prove that John Coltrane is better music than, lets say, Micheal Jackson?
Because he plays that sexy saxophone. :cool:


If you actually bother to read through all my posts, with a lil' more equanimity of mind, maybe you'll atleast comprehend what I'm saying.
But damn right I'm bitter about it. but someone's gotta keep it real and ugly you know? I'd rather be that person, instead of subscribing to the falsehood of relativism.
Oh I understand your position completely, I just dont care :p:
I'm in this thread to discuss jazz and other music. :D

Captain Garry
06-04-2008, 08:04 PM
at the point where you wink to the guy who quotes uncyclopedia in an argument should be the point where you realize you are a complete retard :D

Captain Garry
06-04-2008, 08:10 PM
Everyone believes and judges the quality of musics to be different, theres nothing wrong with that but you have to realize they are opinions which is where the relativism comes in. You are claiming your opinions to be absolute truth which is retarded. Nobody is telling you not to make value judgments, they are telling you not to be a pompous moron and force your opinions on everyone else mate :D

gopherthegreat
06-04-2008, 08:12 PM
i dont respect people who make music for the sole purpose of money, or manufacture pop so its gets airplay on MTV. i respect people who try to make the music they love and arent just about pleasing their stupid record comanies. and some people just like music that you may not like. i think music can be judged on certain things, but a lot of music has a different direction, and you cant compare bands that have completely different directions. and some people just value certain aspects over other aspects. i love going to pop-punk (no, not the mainstreams twisted view of pop-punk) shows, because a lot of those bands put on great shows and play catchy music, and thats what they want to play. and not all emotion is sad, these bands can put emotion into their music, too. i also love blues, but for different aspects of it. see what i mean, here?

phoenix_88
06-04-2008, 08:29 PM
however that doesn't give someone a right to copy the sound from another culture, dilute it and strip it away from its cultural roots, and juxtapose it within a commercial musical context. so **** paul simon for doing that ****.

a guitar player like Paco de Lucia play guitar on "Have you ever really loved a woman"?

flamenco guitar playing thrown into one of the worst examples of bad poetry set to song,


so as opposed to the musician trying to communicate something deep and personal to the external world, by his instrument and music - you're are saying it is more like the musician just thinking about what would make for a catchy tune so some teenaged mutant (nope not Ninja turtle) could bop along while chewing gum and thinking about going to the mall to pick up the X-box. okie dokie

Real quick about your comments on Paul Simon: I meant that you weren't there when they decided when to use that style and how, and the motives behind it, nor were you inside Paul Simon's head, so you can't bring up points about why or why not he did something. Maybe he enjoyed it and using it straight wasn't fitting in the song. And is it only appropriate to be using certain styles in their intended cultural placement? Well then we should be banishing all jazz music because it isn't true to all of its "cultural roots".

Paco de Lucia is seen as a great flamenco guitar player, and he doesn't really even play flamenco. He is essentially doing exactly what Paul Simon did, except he is playing jazz, so he is seen as a grand visionary with immense talent apparently. Paco, is a great player, and I love his music and playing, but by your definition, his music is a slight against all that is good and pure about music. He has taken flamenco, and turned it into a more commercial product, and by throwing it's styles in a 'dumbed down' form with styles from other genres, like more traditional jazz, has created something unique and beautiful, but not truly flamenco. And that is all the Paul Simon did, therefore, the argument is moot.

And I am not saying that music and art SHOULD be that, I am saying that pretty much by definition, music is a form of entertainment. You are obviously entertained when listening to music by John Coltrane, and thus enjoy it. Entertainment and popularity are not the greatest evils of our society, they are part of art. I agree wholeheartedly that an artist should be bringing forth art straight from their heart and should not compromise, but that's very rarely possible, for one, and to continue making art, an artist needs compensation, and to compensate, they need to sell their works. Thus commercialism is a great part of music, it's a little sad, but completely true. So to say that the works of anyone who makes any art are universally lower than others is ridiculous, because as Captain Garry put very well, there is no universal barometer for this because everyone has, and is entitled to, their own opinion. I'm probably going to stop arguing any points really because there's no changing anyones mind, especially not on the internet, and especially not yours.

Jimmy94
06-04-2008, 08:44 PM
at the point where you wink to the guy who quotes uncyclopedia in an argument should be the point where you realize you are a complete retard :D

if uncyclopedia isn't a reliable source then I don't want to know what is.

PhoeglePott
06-05-2008, 05:39 PM
To me if you only listen to what's "in" then your letting those who decide what is "in" choose for you what to listen too. Listen to what you like or aprreciate....

Jackal58
06-05-2008, 09:57 PM
I avoided this thread on page one because it was just fucking stupid.
I avoided this thread on page two because it was just fucking stupid.
You have all now achieved a level I am comfortable with. Beyond fucking stupid.
Music is not now nor will it ever be based upon "fact". Anybody that tries to assign "fact" to music is a dumbass. You all possess opinions and assholes. There is very little difference between the two.
Good shit is good shit. It is a matter of opinion whether or not our assholes put out good shit or not.

Stratwizard
06-06-2008, 09:29 AM
I avoided this thread on page one because it was just fucking stupid.
I avoided this thread on page two because it was just fucking stupid.
You have all now achieved a level I am comfortable with. Beyond fucking stupid.
Music is not now nor will it ever be based upon "fact". Anybody that tries to assign "fact" to music is a dumbass. You all possess opinions and assholes. There is very little difference between the two.
Good shit is good shit. It is a matter of opinion whether or not our assholes put out good shit or not.

Well, I am truly delighted that you decided to grace us idiots with your enlightening contribution. The level of discussion really improved after your post.

Jackal58
06-06-2008, 10:34 AM
Well, I am truly delighted that you decided to grace us idiots with your enlightening contribution. The level of discussion really improved after your post.
You're welcome. And if you call "my opinion > your opinion" a discussion well I'll leave that alone.

Psychedelico
06-06-2008, 11:16 AM
The deluded moron spouting bull**** reasoning to justify his favorite music being better than the rest will not change his mind. Just leave this thread be.

imgooley
06-07-2008, 09:36 PM
I'm hearing jazz right now.

TheNoManBand
06-14-2008, 10:23 PM
Then I'll take a **** in a can and tell everyone it's a pony. And who's going to tell me it's not a pony? That's just my concept of reality!

Hey I like **** in a can! I think it smells nice and is a beautiful piece of art. In fact I have one in my home HOW DARE YOU!?

Jimmy94
06-14-2008, 10:49 PM
Yeah! Seriously How Dare I?

heaven's gate
06-14-2008, 11:15 PM
TS poses stupid question. I'll answer it though. I prefer jazz over rock any day.

ze monsta
06-15-2008, 09:11 AM
Can Resi close this thread?

Meh, I'm gonna report it again.

imgooley
06-15-2008, 09:12 AM
^Why would he close it when he was one of the main deliberators?

ze monsta
06-15-2008, 09:15 AM
No, Axegrinder argued with Resi. I think that this thread is just retarded and it is a huge flame fest.

imgooley
06-15-2008, 09:24 AM
Then kill it with fire.