PDA

View Full Version : Thread Drift - pros & cons?



jandl100
15-08-2009, 09:35
When the original topic of a thread gets hijacked - like MikeH's cable thread .... it's all part of forum life and can be fun, but how much should the mods tolerate it and even encourage it? (Yeah, I know the mods are usually the worst culprits!:doh: :)).

Any thoughts?

I must admit that AoS is the worst I have come across for this. TBH it's all a bit 'in crowd' for me, and may even put newbies off altogether. It can be a bit hard on the originator of the thread as well.

Or maybe I'm just a boring old fart. :lol:

Beechwoods
15-08-2009, 09:42
I'd urge everyone, both new and established to get stuck in. If a thread gets too conjested we can split it and tidy it up. And if any thread originator is concerned at thread hi-jack they should drop one of us a line and we'll sort it out. If we jumped on every thread with a bit of banter it'd kill things cold, so we tread a fine line... Just my thoughts.

Joe
15-08-2009, 09:45
it depends. If someone asks about a specific thing ('what amp should I buy?') then early thread drift will seem like no-one is taking their question seriously, and/or that the forum is clique-y. I see no problem with thread drift once a reasonable number of 'on-topic' replies have been made to the original post. It should be completely banned on the 'for sale' threads though.

I was a member of a forum many years ago where thread drift was mandatory and on-topic posts were banned!

Mike
15-08-2009, 09:47
Maybe it's just a symptom of the low attention span of some of us around here! ;)

... What did I miss, anyway? :confused:

Mike
15-08-2009, 09:48
I was a member of a forum many years ago where thread drift was mandatory and on-topic posts were banned!

That sounds like quite a forum! :eyebrows:

Joe
15-08-2009, 09:54
It was back in the early days of Usenet; the name of the forum was 'alt.fan.british-accent' but any discussion of British accents was frowned upon and threads would, within a post or two, veer wildly off topic. The provision of accurate advice was also considered to be against the spirit of the forum.

jandl100
15-08-2009, 10:00
I used to have an Alfa Romeo Alfasud Ti - Woohoo - great fun! :smoking:... shame about the rust though! :(

Mike
15-08-2009, 10:00
... What did I miss, anyway? :confused:

S'ok... I've found it.

Seems harmless enough... ;)

Marco
15-08-2009, 10:03
I agree with all the comments here, particularly Joe's, which for me are spot-on.

I admit that I'm as guilty as most (or even more so :eyebrows:) of thread drift, and I will watch this in future, however I think some people need to lighten up a bit.

Jerry,


I must admit that AoS is the worst I have come across for this. TBH it's all a bit 'in crowd' for me, and may even put newbies off altogether.


If newbies are so easily 'put off' by a bit of banter/thread drift then perhaps they don't really belong here? I've said before that no forum can be all things to all men, and we don't purport to be. AOS has a unique 'flavour' which sets us apart from other forums, and this is something that we value.

Most new members seem to settle into our style quickly and easily and are far from put off. The stats prove this. I would cite Dave C, Alex UK, DSJR, Haselsh1, Labarum, Covenant, Aquapiranha, Martin T, barry.d.hunt, and Hamish Gill (amongst others), as excellent examples of 'newbies' (or relative newbies) settling in and quickly embracing what AOS is all about.

As for the 'in crowd' thing, no disrespect to your favourite forum, Wigwam (they're far from alone in this), but it's hardly a shining example of being non-'in crowd'. There are more cliques there than at a Mason's convention! :lol:

More seriously, every forum has its 'vociferous' like-minded regulars. AOS is no exception, except I'd argue that ours are friendlier than most. However, I don't see that qualifying as an 'in-crowd' - just a normal part of a community. If there is a so-called 'in-crowd' here, then ours is the most welcoming example of the kind, as no-one is excluded from joining!

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
15-08-2009, 10:03
when i was a grubby teenager i was a member of a deftones chatroom ... i dont think anyone ever talked about the deftones...

Alex_UK
15-08-2009, 12:06
21111111111111111111111111111

Mike
15-08-2009, 12:10
:scratch:

Marco
15-08-2009, 12:15
21111111111111111111111111111

LOL. You're the best example of the lot, matey. You've only been here 12 days and you're already a 'Senior Member' with 126 posts...

I guess you're part of the 'in-crowd', then? :lol:

Marco.

jandl100
15-08-2009, 12:16
:scratch:

Perhaps the little mite in Alex's avatar leant on the keyboard! :)

DaveK
15-08-2009, 12:51
Hi Guys,
Here I go again!! Once again I find myself in conflict with 'Management' in general an Marco in particular - sorry Marco, it's nothing personal. :)

I agree with all the comments here, particularly Joe's, which for me are spot-on. Agreed, particularly his first post.

I admit that I'm as guilty as most (or even more so :eyebrows:) of thread drift, Yep! and I will watch this in future, however I think some people need to lighten up a bit. Nobody's really uptight from what I read - I certainly aint, despite the impression my large font bright red posting may have given, but it was the second time the thread drift alert button had been pressed.

Jerry,
If newbies are so easily 'put off' by a bit of banter/thread drift then perhaps they don't really belong here? Start being picky about who 'belongs here' and who doesn't is well on the way to being cliquey, IMHO. Everyone who feels that they might like to join should be made to feel welcome. Any element of cliqueyness that they detect whilst they are 'lurking' is going to tend to disuade potential valued new members. If they subsequently decide not to remain, fair enough. Have 'Management' done any surveys of the numbers of people who join, post rarely or not at all and then disappear? I've done a brief one and it don't make encouraging reading as far as healthy growth of the forum is concerned, IMHO. I've said before that no forum can be all things to all men, and we don't purport to be. True but perhaps it shouldn't stop us from trying! AOS has a unique 'flavour' (some might say that that flavour is tinged with cliqueyness) which sets us apart from other forums, and this is something that we (the 'Management/bill payers?) value. but do all the members and potential members?

Most new members seem to settle into our style quickly and easily and are far from put off. The ones that stay do but lots don't The stats prove this. (not the ones that I've looked at!) I would cite Dave C, Alex UK, DSJR, Haselsh1, Labarum, Covenant, Aquapiranha, Martin T, barry.d.hunt, and Hamish Gill (amongst others), as excellent examples of 'newbies' (or relative newbies) settling in and quickly embracing what AOS is all about. Be honest, Dave C has expressed his reservations before but decided that the only way to bring about change is from the inside.

As for the 'in crowd' thing, no disrespect to your favourite forum, Wigwam (they're far from alone in this), but it's hardly a shining example of being non-'in crowd'. There are more cliques there than at a Mason's convention! :lol:

Marco.
I stay with the forum because, by and large I enjoy the 'company' of the fellow members, I value the free and easy attitude that prevails and I particularly value all the help, advice and information that is equally freely exchanged. Accordingly it would take a lot for me to give all this up but I did seriously consider it a while back - remember Marco?
I accept without question the bill-payers absolute right to run the forum as they want it to be run and to have a 'couldn't-care-less' attitude about anyone who doesn't share the same view but isn't that almost a definition of a clique?
Just to confirm, you'll have to kick me out to stop me posting similar views when the subject is raised (by others - my thoughts on the subject are already well known).
Cheers,

aquapiranha
15-08-2009, 12:53
FWIW I think that AOS is less guilty of this than the other forums I often look at. PFM for example often has threads digress to subjects such as the KKK, Hitler and celebrity chefs on a regular basis! plus, the animosity between a certain number of regular posters often derails a subject. HFWW appears to be lately more concerned with who is worth a shag rather than HIFI.

Just IMO

:)

Marco
15-08-2009, 12:59
Hi Dave,

I think you've misunderstood me, old chap. I'll get to it later as I'm in the middle of telling the electrician where to put the waterproof ceiling speakers in our new bathroom! ;)

Marco.

DaveK
15-08-2009, 13:39
Hi Marco,
T'aint necessary to get back to me - I have my views and you have yours - and never the twain shall meet, young chap! In your favour, the ability to agree to disagree without falling out is another of the strengths of this forum - hope I don't push it beyond the limits but I am unlikely to change my view - it is a matter of perception and, like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. I see a clique core in this forum, you don't; end of story.
Cheers,
PS
Always good to hear from you but .......

DaveK
15-08-2009, 13:42
Hi Dave,
I'm in the middle of telling the electrician where to put the waterproof ceiling speakers in our new bathroom! ;)

Marco.

There must be a joke in there somewhere about that well known Leak sound but for the life of me I can't think of one!!
Cheers,
PS
Sorry for the thread drift :lol: .

Alex_UK
15-08-2009, 14:10
Perhaps the little mite in Alex's avatar leant on the keyboard! :)

Absolutely spot on - how funny was that, bless her!!!! :lol:

Alex_UK
15-08-2009, 14:31
LOL. You're the best example of the lot, matey. You've only been here 12 days and you're already a 'Senior Member' with 126 posts...

I guess you're part of the 'in-crowd', then? :lol:

Marco.

A couple of my posts have even been about hi-fi! ;)

I've seen exactly the same discussions on other (non-hifi) forums, and my 2p worth is that I obviously like the banter here, else I would't have been so prolific, and if I had in any way felt there was a clique I probably wouldn't have hung around (witness my post on giving up on another forum because I felt newbies in particular got ignored.)

Knowing what I'm like, I'll probably post less as the novelty wears off, but I usually like to dive in and make friends, have a bit of a laugh and learn a lot along the way, and this forum is right up my alley, so to speak!

Marco
15-08-2009, 15:22
You tell 'em, Alex! ;)

Hi Dave,


The ones that stay do but lots don't...


...and so it is with life in real communities, just as it is in virtual ones such as Internet forums.

People come and people go - there are many reasons for this, not necessarily those you may think are responsible. No-one here is a mind reader, Dave, so short of asking those who've been absent their reasons for being so, there's no way of knowing for sure. I'm sure that won't stop you surmising until the cows come home, though! :ner:


I have my views and you have yours - and never the twain shall meet, young chap! In your favour, the ability to agree to disagree without falling out is another of the strengths of this forum - hope I don't push it beyond the limits but I am unlikely to change my view - it is a matter of perception and, like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. I see a clique core in this forum, you don't; end of story.


That's fine Dave - people will always have disagreements and you and I are no exception. Overall, we get on very well though, which is the most important thing.

The fact is no forum is perfect - all have their 'cliques'. Perhaps you could name a forum which you consider as the perfect template for 'non-cliqueyness?', and I'll be more than willing to take whatever they do to achieve this on board. I actually consider your use of the term 'clique' in reference to AOS quite derogatory. Whilst trying to be as unbiased as possible, I really can't think of a more welcoming and friendly audio site than this.

Alex mentioned his problems with the What Hifi? forum, which I would agree with. Steve (Aquapiranha) has mentioned the problems with Wigwam and pfm, which although being good forums in their own right, I would echo. Zerogain is too dead for there to be any cliques, and the World Designs and Audio Talk forums are in my opinion way more cliquey than here, so where else is there that you'd consider as the epitome of 'non-cliqueyness'?

Even the US audio sites are rife with 'in-crowds'... The point I'm making is that there are cliques in all walks of life - sometimes intended and sometimes not. If there are any here I can assure you that they're of the latter and not the former category. I see it more as a group of like-minded enthusiasts helping each other and sharing information/experiences, which you've already alluded to. We try to be as friendly and make everyone as welcome as possible, and there is plenty of evidence of this.

However, if despite our best efforts people still feel that AOS isn't for them then I'm afraid that's life, me old son! You can't win 'em all :cool:

Marco.

jandl100
15-08-2009, 15:27
I think it's a lot like restaurants or pubs or even favourite armchairs ... we all have our personal favourites - places where we feel comfortable and at ease and not have to be too careful about how we behave. Same goes for hifi forums - some folks are more cumfy here, and that's really nice to see, others are more cumfy somewhere else.

Nothing wrong with that at all. I'm sorry if this slightly uncumfy outsider rocked the boat. :sorry:

The Vinyl Adventure
15-08-2009, 15:55
i think as a "regular" who sits outside the "clique" i can offer a p.o.v. on this..
i have been to many forums and recived a very cold reception and although there is definatey an air of cliqueness between some people on here (tending to be the people who talk about marcos pink chemise or whatever) i dont think that really is a problem. everyone is very welcoming and very reasonable even when faced with oposing opinion! the idea of having a room specifically for introducing your self i think is most refreshing!
my advice to anyone who gets distracted by those who get distracted and talk nonsence (about marcos yellow thongs or whatever), should just skip through the crap, put a hold on their imagination for a second, and if needs be restate the question!
i my self have never felt uncofortable, even in debate, and that,based on my previous experience of both photography/hifi forums, i think says a lot for this place!


alex-uk ... you are getting seriously close to being welcomed with open arms into the "clique" ... i would think long and hard about falling into it, im fairly certain that they get up to some pretty odd stuff... maybe involving large quantitys of expensive wine, ladys clothing and loud music (so no one can hear you scream)
all im saying is...if anything bad happens dont say you wernt warned!!!

Mike
15-08-2009, 16:01
Hmmm...

Well, if there IS a 'clique', and I'm not so sure there is TBH, it's an open-clique. Anyone can join! All that's needed is to recognise Marco's penchant for wearing women's clothing and thats it, job done! :lolsign:

Steve Toy
15-08-2009, 16:12
If we stopped the Daphne's frock and matching accessories cliquey in-jokes the drift problem would be well-and-truly solved.

It was fun for a while but I groan each time I see it now.

Beechwoods
15-08-2009, 16:18
Agreed, and I'm happy to delete any and all future references to that subject going forward, if it'd help. It's definitely a joke that's gone past it's best-before date :)

Steve Toy
15-08-2009, 16:21
<hands Nick the scissors>

The Vinyl Adventure
15-08-2009, 16:22
look see... all scrambleing to make light of it and removing referances .... like nothing goes on behind closed doors... im on to you, you dirty beggards ;)

Steve Toy
15-08-2009, 16:26
It was never anything to do with me!

The Vinyl Adventure
15-08-2009, 16:29
to be fair .. in reality, it is perfectly understandable that the mods and admin would have in jokes between them.. i dont think there as anything off putting about it at all! to me it just gives off an air of freindly banter... if everyone was straight up and boring it wouldnt be aos now would it?!

Steve Toy
15-08-2009, 16:31
as I said...

Covenant
15-08-2009, 16:31
If I have been the cause of thread drift problems-sorry.
Personally I dont see it as a great problem, perhaps it can be tedious if you are following a thread for particular information but most people in ordinary conversation jump from topic to topic.
I think the mods here have just the right touch. Basically if everyone is getting on they dont interfere. Abuse, of any kind, is not tolerated.
I really hadn't considered that there was any type of clique here. I will have to go and ponder that one for a while. :mental:

DaveK
15-08-2009, 16:48
Hi again Guys,
I think Hamish, in his usual common sense way, (sorry, no intention of 'talking down' - respect man, respect!) may well have put a finger (or several) on the crux of this debate.


i think as a "regular" who sits outside the "clique" i can offer a p.o.v. on this..
i have been to many forums and recived a very cold reception and although there is definatey an air of cliqueness between some people on here (tending to be the people who talk about marcos pink chemise or whatever) i dont think that really is a problem. everyone is very welcoming and very reasonable even when faced with oposing opinion! the idea of having a room specifically for introducing your self i think is most refreshing!
my advice to anyone who gets distracted by those who get distracted and talk nonsence (about marcos yellow thongs or whatever), should just skip through the crap, put a hold on their imagination for a second, and if needs be restate the question!
i my self have never felt uncofortable, even in debate, and that,based on my previous experience of both photography/hifi forums, i think says a lot for this place!.

I agree wholeheartedly with most, if not all, of what he says and I would summarise the situation as:-
Any perceived clique irritates some members less than others - some are unaware of it (often the ones in it) and some are very aware of it. I personally also find irritating the oft repeated "if you don't like it, go somewhere else" dictum. It almost defines the word 'clique'. I do like it but that doesn't mean that I think it can't be improved. I know that there are others that agree with me but unfortunately most of them have taken you at your word and gone somewhere else. You may think that the forum is better off without them, but is it? You may be happier in their absence but that is not the same thing.
For the record, nobody has accused the forum of not welcoming new members. It is most welcoming.
Like I keep saying, it's your forum, you pay the bills and you have the right to run it any which way you like. I have nothing but good will towards all members, even the ones I don't agree with all the time, In or out I shall always be grateful for my membership - I've made a lot of new friends (I hope) and benefitted greatly from it - long may it continue.
Warning to Alex: -

alex-uk ... you are getting seriously close to being welcomed with open arms into the "clique" ... i would think long and hard about falling into it, im fairly certain that they get up to some pretty odd stuff... maybe involving large quantitys of expensive wine, ladys clothing and loud music (so no one can hear you scream)
all im saying is...if anything bad happens dont say you wernt warned!!!
Take due note !! ;);)
Cheers,
PS
Daphne's latest couture is not a problem for me unless it is semi-continous and takes over and/or diverts the thread.

Marco
15-08-2009, 16:57
to be fair .. in reality, it is perfectly understandable that the mods and admin would have in jokes between them.. i dont think there as anything off putting about it at all! to me it just gives off an air of freindly banter... if everyone was straight up and boring it wouldnt be aos now would it?!

That's it in a nutshell, Hamish!!

Oh, and I'm quite willing to give up the references to shlinky dreshes if it'll stop this bloody nonsense (sorry, Dave, that's what it is) about 'cliques' :lol:

The fact is this place is better than most when it comes to that aspect of an on-line community. If someone can show me another established audio/music forum where there are no 'in-crowds'/'cliques' of any description then I'm all ears!

Monsieur Toy, you've got no chance of being in the 'clique' because you're never bloody here!!! :lolsign:


I'm sorry if this slightly uncumfy outsider rocked the boat :sorry:

Jerry, you're cool, dude - no worries!

Marco.

P.S Steve, bell me, if you wanna come round on Monday.

The Vinyl Adventure
15-08-2009, 16:59
.... I have no problem with being acused of having common sence!

The Vinyl Adventure
15-08-2009, 17:02
Well, I am glad I have this placed as sussed as I previously expected.... I shall continue as I was.... Happy to have found a forum where there is little back biteing (but also quietly suspisious of the private lives of a few of the more ecentric members)

Marco
15-08-2009, 17:05
LOL - good lad! :eyebrows:

Marco.

Mike
15-08-2009, 17:09
(but also quietly suspisious of the private lives of a few of the more ecentric members)

Very perceptive! ;)

Marco
15-08-2009, 17:13
It's a load of bollocks that started years ago between Ian Walker and I. Sometime when I'm feeling exceptionally bored I'll explain it to you! :eyebrows: :ner:

Marco.

Mike
15-08-2009, 17:15
Please don't... it'll only spoil the illusion! :lolsign:

The Vinyl Adventure
15-08-2009, 17:17
Really ...... You don't have to ..... I think I'm happier not knowing!!!! ;)

Marco
15-08-2009, 17:20
It's actually rather funny, but I'll save it for another time... :eyebrows:

Marco.

Steve Toy
15-08-2009, 17:21
To be fair it was quite funny for a while. Yes I could pop up Monday.

Jonboy
15-08-2009, 17:21
Well, I am glad I have this placed as sussed as I previously expected.... I shall continue as I was.... Happy to have found a forum where there is little back biteing (but also quietly suspisious of the private lives of a few of the more ecentric members)

I for one will agree with this as a newbee i prefer to read more than i write not through lazyness but thats the way i am, i have read much on here and always find a good mix of on and off topic banter all of which is part of the forum life, i have gained a bit of knowledge and had a laugh on the way, the way it should be me thinks, anyway thats my 2 peneth worth:cool:

Marco
15-08-2009, 17:27
To be fair it was quite funny for a while. Yes I could pop up Monday.

Call me when you get a chance :cool:

Nice one, Jon!

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
15-08-2009, 17:29
..... Well I am glad to be the voice of reason:smoking:

DaveK
15-08-2009, 17:54
Really ...... You don't have to ..... I think I'm happier not knowing!!!! ;)

I think that that probably goes for most of us!!:lolsign::lolsign:

Alex_UK
15-08-2009, 18:50
they get up to some pretty odd stuff... maybe involving large quantitys of expensive wine, ladys clothing and loud music (so no one can hear you scream)
all im saying is...if anything bad happens dont say you wernt warned!!!

You think that's bad???? Now you all realise why I'm enjoying being here so much! ;)

On a serious note, I personally don't think any change is necessary, the comparison from Jerry (I think) about a favourite pub being spot on - some people will like one forum more than others, the same way as they do their local - everyone has a choice to come in for a swift half or stick around and get wasted with the rest of us! :eyebrows: (now I'm in the clique! :lol:)

Marco
15-08-2009, 19:01
Hahahaha, you're fitting in here very nicely Alex!

Honestly, on a more serious note, I think we should all be bloody grateful for what we've got. AOS is a cool place to be, and pretty successful, despite its 'imperfections'.

I'd love to see the so-called 'detractors' Dave mentions, who've left for whatever reason, start an audio forum from scratch in today's climate and achieve what we've achieved in 17 months!!!

Let them invent their own forum and see how far they get ;)

It's easy to criticise, but so much harder to create and innovate...

Marco.

DSJR
15-08-2009, 20:38
As an aside, I'm just watching the programme about Woodstock. What happened to all these hippies? Most got absorbed into the "machine" and conformed.. Amazing to see these people, now in their sixties.

'Scuse me, Canned Heat's on...

Marco
15-08-2009, 21:29
Canned Heat? Wossat bollocks? :lol:

Marco.

Marco
15-08-2009, 22:05
Sounds like some cheap American sitcom to me... :confused:

Marco.

Mike
15-08-2009, 22:27
Canned Heat? Wossat bollocks? :lol:

Marco.

Oh dear. :doh:

Marco
16-08-2009, 06:35
Is it something to do with these dudes?

http://www.cannedheatmusic.com/

If so, it's way before my time! Never heard of the chaps (remember, I'm an 80s boy!), *but* having read a bit of the website I know that I'd like them. I've got loads of music of a similar style :)

What threw me was Dave saying "Canned Heat's on". In doing so, he made it sound like a TV programme... I even searched through the listings to try and find it! :lol:

Had he said "Canned Heat are on", it might have been different... ;)

Marco.

Beechwoods
16-08-2009, 07:12
I can't believe you've never heard of Canned Heat! They're about the first band to play in The Woodstock movie :)

Marco
16-08-2009, 07:28
I've never seen the Woodstock movie!! :lol: :lol:

Has it got 80s music innit?

Marco.

Beechwoods
16-08-2009, 07:28
:doh:

Marco
16-08-2009, 07:33
Hahahaha... Just being honest, guv! :eyebrows:

Some of that stuff just hasn't entered my 'zone'.

You have to remember that I never grew up with any of that stuff (check out the 'choons from ya yoof' thread to see what my was in my zone for quite a long time!), and since then, the bands featured in Woodstock have never really caught my attention that much. Horror of horrors, I know, but there you are! I guess I'm just into different things from you guys... :smoking:

Marco.

Alex_UK
16-08-2009, 07:48
Hahahaha... Just being honest, guv! :eyebrows:

Some of that stuff just hasn't entered my 'zone'.

You have to remember that I never grew up with any of that stuff (check out the 'choons from ya yoof' thread to see what my was in my zone for quite a long time!), and since then, the bands featured in Woodstock have never really caught my attention that much. Horror of horrors, I know, but there you are! I guess I'm just into different things from you guys... :smoking:

Marco.

Probably an age thing Marco, I was only 6 months old 40 years ago so I too missed out on the Woodstock thing, though some have crossed my path since (i.e Santanna as mentioned in the other "woodstock" thread.) Doesn't mean we can't go back and try it now, though of course.)

Beechwoods
16-08-2009, 08:14
I was -6 but it never stopped me wishing I'd been there :)

Spectral Morn
16-08-2009, 08:37
I know a guy who was working on a farm 6 miles away and he didn't go :doh::doh::doh::(:mental: How could you not have gone to WoodStock. I was 4. Like Marco I am a child of the 70's and 80's(musically anyway) but I discovered the toons of the late 60's and fell in love with much of it, but I also think much of it is highly over rated Bob Dylan for example, The Rolling Stones, the Beatles (run for cover :sofa:). Just a very humble opinion I just don't get what others see hear in those so called legendary musicians.


Regards D S D L

DSJR
16-08-2009, 08:58
I never had an older brother to educate me in the sixties rock movement, so many of the bands before Led Zep, Yes etc tended to pass me by. I've since discovered a few, but the relative crudeness of the music and recording now gets in the way as I wasn't "there" at the time. The Woodstock music was full of blues and folk, rather than hard rock I thought, although The Who of that period ought to bridge the gap I suppose :)

Bands I missed first time around? Cream, much of Hendrix, VdG Generator, Curved Air, Soft Machine, Moody Blues, Steppenwolf(?), Matching Mole, much of the Canterbury scene such as Caravan and shedloads of other now revered bands.

Marco
16-08-2009, 09:35
Guys,

I agree with all recent comments :) It's both an age and taste thing. It also depends what kind of music you've been exposed to throughout your life.


I was -6 but it never stopped me wishing I'd been there

The difference is, matey, you're 'into' all that stuff even though it wasn't your era, whereas for me it's different. I like that sort of music now, but it was and never will be 'my thang'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your dad also introduced you to a lot of that kind of stuff? So maybe that's partly why you're so into it?

It was rather different for me when I was young. My parents are Italian (they were mainly into traditional Italian music), so my first musical memories are of the likes of Mario Lanza, Caruso, Connie Francis, Shirley Bassey (although of course she's not Italian), and all sorts of obscure Italian love songs and 'Tango' music... :mental:

They also liked stuff such as Dean Martin, Nat King Cole, Frank Sinatra, Perry Como, Tony Bennett (all the 'crooners' you can think of!), so that's the kind of stuff I was exposed to at a very early age, and I too love this now (apart from Perry Como!!) I didn't have a father who introduced me to Santana, and such like - that was all 'noise' to my mum and him :eyebrows: (my parents are in their late 70s now). I also don't have any brothers or sisters, so had no-one like that either to influence my musical tastes.

When I grew up as a kid in the 70s and a teenager in the 80s, the 'classic rock' sound (and associated groups) you guys are into was not something I liked at all - in fact I hated it! I preferred pop, disco, soul, funk, electronic, keyboard-based/'new romantic' music, such as the stuff I've linked to on YouTube videos in the music room, and all sorts of obscure 80s bands that I doubt many people would remember. Furthermore, most of my mates at school and at home were into the same stuff as me...apart from one guy who introduced me to Gong, and I ended up getting into them big time.

Then I got right into indie, also all sorts of world music (I love African and South American stuff), 'club-style' dance music, think the sort of stuff Pete Tong plays (or played) on Radio 1 (if he still does this), and music from DJs such as Sasha, Carl Cox, Paul Oakenfold, Tiesto, Paul Van Dyk, etc, and all manner of other types of music, including krautrock and punk.

Nowadays I listen to (and like) almost anything, including a lot of the classic rock or 'hippy shit' you guys are into, but I also love jazz, folk, and some classical music, too :)

Horses for courses, mateys - I suspect that I'm just into a different type of 'sound' to some of you guys. It would be a boring world if we were all the same!! :cool:

Marco.

Marco
16-08-2009, 09:55
Hi Neil,


Like Marco I am a child of the 70's and 80's(musically anyway) but I discovered the toons of the late 60's and fell in love with much of it...


You see, I didn't. I've only really discovered that sort of stuff in the last 10 years or so, but I do like quite a lot of it now.


...but I also think much of it is highly over rated Bob Dylan for example, The Rolling Stones, the Beatles (run for cover :sofa:). Just a very humble opinion I just don't get what others see hear in those so called legendary musicians.


Although I like the Stones and The Beatles (Dylan doesn't do much for me, though), I completely agree!!

What rips my knitting is the 'musical snobbery' that exists which dictates that if you're not into certain well-known rock bands/artists (I could name quite a few), you have no taste and are therefore frowned upon by the so-called 'cognoscenti' - to that, I offer a two-fingered salute! :upyours:

The word 'classic' is also banded about willy-nilly in reference to all sorts of music and the bands associated with it - but the fact is, it's only 'classic' if you know it and like it in the first bloody place!!! :ner:

I suspect that my definition of the word in a musical sense would differ from many others here, and I offer no apologies for that! :eyebrows:

Marco.

aquapiranha
16-08-2009, 10:37
Bob Dylan for example, The Rolling Stones, the Beatles (run for cover :sofa:). Just a very humble opinion I just don't get what others see hear in those so called legendary musicians.


Regards D S D L

I have to agree re the beatles, I have just one CD and that is enough for me. I know being a 'scouser' that is probably heresey, but it simply doesnt do it for me. The Stones however I do like a lot more, and as for Dylan, again I don't like his stuff much despite being a folk fan. I do like what he did with the Travelling Wilbury's though.

:)

EDIT, I just noticed that this thread has drifted somewhat....

Spectral Morn
16-08-2009, 11:13
I have to agree re the beatles, I have just one CD and that is enough for me. I know being a 'scouser' that is probably heresey, but it simply doesnt do it for me. The Stones however I do like a lot more, and as for Dylan, again I don't like his stuff much despite being a folk fan. I do like what he did with the Travelling Wilbury's though.

:)

EDIT, I just noticed that this thread has drifted somewhat....

INDEED it has, whats the point of a thread on THREAD DRIFT if it didn't drift ;):lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Regards D S D L

The Vinyl Adventure
16-08-2009, 11:15
I too completely agree! There is so much music that people can't understand me not liking. My fiancée always tell people I don't like the betles, like it's a crime! It's not even like I don't like them, they are alright, just not "oh my god, the betles are so amaaayzing" like everyone says they are! ... I do like that one that jako covered... can't think what it's called now!
I don't really have an fave era of music though, I just pick bits I like from all over! That said I do wish I had been around to witness some late 60's 70's stuff first time round!

(I deleted a post from last night... I was pretty hammerd and don't remember righting it, so I thought it ok just to scrap it... I hope no one minds?)

Spectral Morn
16-08-2009, 11:15
Hi Neil,



You see, I didn't. I've only really discovered that sort of stuff in the last 10 years or so, but I do like quite a lot of it now.



Although I like the Stones and The Beatles (Dylan doesn't do much for me, though), I completely agree!!

What rips my knitting is the 'musical snobbery' that exists which dictates that if you're not into certain well-known rock bands/artists (I could name quite a few), you have no taste and are therefore frowned upon by the so-called 'cognoscenti' - to that, I offer a two-fingered salute! :upyours:

The word 'classic' is also banded about willy-nilly in reference to all sorts of music and the bands associated with it - but the fact is, it's only 'classic' if you know it and like it in the first bloody place!!! :ner:

I suspect that my definition of the word in a musical sense would differ from many others here, and I offer no apologies for that! :eyebrows:

Marco.

Yes I know what you mean.

"What you don't like the Beatles/Stones/Dylan ........(fill in the blank)" :scratch:"You have no soul"

Sorry but I do....just not yours.

I hate football (Soccer) too and have been accused of having no soul either....no I just have sense ;):lol::lol::lol:


Regards D S D L

The Vinyl Adventure
16-08-2009, 11:36
This guy I work with was moaning at me about not watching football... He couldn't understand that I didn't suport a team (he even laughed at me when I said sposor a team, instead of support, when we were talking about it) he suggested I pick a team at random and then follow thier progress! He lolled completely baffled when I said tha, that would be pointless as I wouldn't follow it!
I don't understand how rediculas these people are... They cry when "thier team" loose... They don't even know the people playing the game ... It doesn't make any sence ... Unyet it's so widely accepted as normal behavior... Very very odd! ... Also I don't go round telling football suporters they are wired, so why do they tell me I'm wierd? It's only a sport... The betles are only a band ...
Its the same with " celebritys" ... I saw a guy who looked liked ben kingsley at charlbury train station the other week, hannah was asleep at the time, but when she woke I told her... She got so exited "maybe it was ben Kingsley... Get your phone out, have a look see if you can find out where he lives" ... Turns out that ben kingsley maybee lives in charlbury. Hannah got so exited " oh wow... You saw ben Kingsley!" ... He's just another bloke ... He just happens to be quite a good actor and as such is on telly. It's completely ingrained into society that this box we all have in our lounge makes people more important somehow than the rest of us... Most people just blindly accept it!! I've just never really understood why... It's not hard to question the obvious is it?!

Anyway rant over ... I think I'm drifting this drifter a bit to far!!....

The Vinyl Adventure
16-08-2009, 11:41
..... Has anyone ever seen T4 .... I'm sorry but there is no way those moron presenters are in anyway superior to me!!! Unyet I bet people ask them for autographs and to have pictures taken with them.... Very very very odd behaviour, widely accepted as completly normal!!

Alex_UK
16-08-2009, 11:52
Maybe we need an off-topic "overrated acts" thread - I'd agree Beatles are only "ok", but there are plenty of others I don't "get" at all Fleet Foxes being the recent one that springs to mind...

The Vinyl Adventure
16-08-2009, 11:56
Yeah I bought that fleetfoxes cd on recomendation.... I'd say it's average to ok! 2.6 out of 5 stars I give it!

Marco
16-08-2009, 14:15
I'm with ya on the other points, guys, but I loikes the Fleet Foxes :)

The one I don't get is Bruce bloody Springstein, or R.E.M, Amy Whinehouse (no that wasn't a typo!) and freakin' Oasis... Worra lorra shee-ite muslims!! :bog:

Marco.

Jonboy
16-08-2009, 16:16
I'm with ya on the other points, guys, but I loikes the Fleet Foxes :)
Marco.
If you like them have you tried Bon Iver and The Low Anthem

aquapiranha
16-08-2009, 16:18
Yeah I bought that fleetfoxes cd on recomendation.... I'd say it's average to ok! 2.6 out of 5 stars I give it!

Well I like them! and they were bloody brilliant live too. Just goes to show, one man's meat etc..

Marco
16-08-2009, 17:19
If you like them have you tried Bon Iver and The Low Anthem

No, but noted - cheers! :)

Hey guys, this has turned out to be a great thread, with some top-notch drifty-poo in the classic AOS tradition... :lolsign:

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
16-08-2009, 17:42
i wonder what jerry makes of all this?

Beechwoods
16-08-2009, 18:03
I used to have an Alfa Romeo Alfasud Ti - Woohoo - great fun! :smoking:... shame about the rust though! :(

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em? ;)

Alex_UK
16-08-2009, 19:02
that wasn't a typo!) and freakin' Oasis... Worra lorra shee-ite muslims!! :bog:

my God, I thought I was the only one! I hate that pair of Gallagher t.w.@.t.s with a passion, and would never buy any of their music on principle... (OK, one or two of the tunes are a "bit" catchy...! Before I get flamed!)

The Vinyl Adventure
16-08-2009, 19:40
my God, I thought I was the only one! I hate that pair of Gallagher t.w.@.t.s with a passion, and would never buy any of their music on principle... (OK, one or two of the tunes are a "bit" catchy...! Before I get flamed!)

im certainly not going to quibble with that... pair of tossers.... crapy music....

aquapiranha
16-08-2009, 19:45
No, you are not alone! Blur had more talent in their toenails than those two chav idiots. Plus, What's the story..? is quite probably THE WORST recorded CD I have ever had the displeasure of having to listen to. Utter, utter shite.

:ner:

Spectral Morn
16-08-2009, 19:54
If Oasis was a real Oasis, it would be a dry hole. No talent...lets copy the Beatles , crap copying .......(fill in the blank). Boring, I agree Blur much better.

Bruce (the Boss) Springbore....nope don't get him either every song sounds the same. He may well put on a good show, but IMHO his music sounds the same and is BORING.

I agree great thread.


Regards D S D L

Spectral Morn
16-08-2009, 19:58
No, you are not alone! Blur had more talent in their toenails than those two chav idiots. Plus, What's the story..? is quite probably THE WORST recorded CD I have ever had the displeasure of having to listen to. Utter, utter shite.

:ner:

No that would be Metalica's last album......brings whole new levels of compression to compression.............................:doh: Why bother. Playing the songs on the Jools Holland show was amazing listen to the cd crapsville.


Regards D S D L

The Vinyl Adventure
16-08-2009, 20:07
yeah at least blur had the common decency to make more than one song ...(im fairly certain all oasis songs are the same!).
think tank is very different to parklife for example but both pretty bloody enjoyable albums in thier own right
oasis just seem to be doing the same thing they did to start with but as each album goes on it seems gets fractionaly worse....

Alex_UK
16-08-2009, 20:14
Interesting that the Oasis detractors are Blur fans, me included, (though I've enjoyed all of the side projects (Gorillaz, Deltron 3030 etc.) as much if not more. I never felt I made a "brit-pop" choice though, (much hyped at the time I recall) - Oasis are just crap! And anyway, Graham Coxon was on Blue Peter. Twice!

The Vinyl Adventure
16-08-2009, 20:30
that "britpop battle" just made people choose and divided the nation between the intelegent people - who went for blur, and the drongos with atitudes - who went for oasis.. since that happend the two bands will always be assosiated!
what gets me is that oasis are a bigger band but i guess that just means there are more drongos than intelegent people in this country!!

Joe
16-08-2009, 22:21
that "britpop battle" just made people choose and divided the nation between the intelegent people - who went for blur, and the drongos with atitudes - who went for oasis..

Of course, the people with real taste ignored both of them in favour of The Boo Radleys.

Joe
16-08-2009, 22:22
I have to agree re the beatles, I have just one CD and that is enough for me. I know being a 'scouser' that is probably heresey, but it simply doesnt do it for me. .

Anyone who doesn't like the Beatles is wrong.

Barry
16-08-2009, 22:54
This thread on 'thread drift' is in danger of drifting into a rut.

There will always be differences of opinion over musical tastes, just like anything else. I would be interested to hear why certain members think that the Beatles or the Stones are 'crap'.

But that would prevent further thread drift........

Marco
16-08-2009, 22:55
Of course, the people with real taste ignored both of them in favour of The Boo Radleys.

Mmmm... Possibly.

If we're talking indie (are we, as it's a somewhat nebulous term?), my fav bands are (in no particular order):

Joy Division
The Pixies
Sonic Youth
Belle And Sebastian
Teenage Fan Club
Franz Ferdinand
The Flaming Lips
Death Cab For Cutie
Modest Mouse
Pavement
Stone Roses

:)

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
16-08-2009, 23:10
This thread on 'thread drift' is in danger of drifting into a rut.

There will always be differences of opinion over musical tastes, just like anything else. I would be interested to hear why certain members think that the Beatles or the Stones are 'crap'.

But that would prevent further thread drift........

crap is a strong word .. i def dont think they are crap... i just dont find them quite as amazing as it is almost nessasary to do so...if that makes sence?

Spectral Morn
17-08-2009, 00:33
crap is a strong word .. i def dont think they are crap... i just dont find them quite as amazing as it is almost nessasary to do so...if that makes sence?

I agree....not crap. That would be to strong and not fully justified. Over rated will do instead IMHO.



Regards D S D L

aquapiranha
17-08-2009, 08:50
:confused:
Anyone who doesn't like the Beatles is wrong.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. and that is just the point isn't it? it is all just opinions. I don't like the beatles...not hard to understand surely? I am not disputing the fact they were revolutionarly, or that they may have been the inspiration for many other bands. I just don't enjoy the music they produced.

however, I do like some of their members output for example John Lennon and some of Mcartneys output.

does that make sense? I am not rubbishing anyone elses opinion, but people who say you are not a proper music lover because you do not like one band in particular is a bit sad really.

:confused:

DanJennings
17-08-2009, 09:01
It's become a bit of a cliche to say bands / artists are overrated, especially Beatles, Nirvana, Oasis.... This irritates me a more than a little bit.

You see, more than a few people have described me as a music snob in the past, because I do listen to quirky and obscure music, but then a lot of the same people shout 'Overrated!' whenever I mention a few bands, including all of the above.

Why can't people just ignore the hype and take the music at face value?

Oasis' first album is good. That's why they're so big, helped by a hopelessly commercial second album, and more of the same ad nauseum. Admittedly Blur were better, a proper band, and yet their first album was pretty poor. It was a shame that they never got quite as big as Oasis, probably because they didn't say derogatory things about other people, get drunk, and end up in all the papers. Back together now though eh?

The Beatles, the beatles, the beatles, of course they're overrated, people harp on about them 24/7. But the truth is, people do that for a reason, they were huge innovators, the whole genre of popular music and rock would be completely different without them. Would you call Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin overrated?

Oh, and the Boo Radleys? Really?!

What about Pulp, Suede and The Divine Comedy? Some of the more interesting britpoppers

Mike
17-08-2009, 09:22
This thread is becoming too popular... before long it'll be 'overrated'! ;)

Marco
17-08-2009, 09:46
Why can't people just ignore the hype and take the music at face value?


Hi Dan,

Good post. To answer your question, I think it's because if you don't actually *like* the music it doesn't matter how talented/inspirational/innovative/revolutionary the musicians are. I suspect this is why Steve doesn't care much for The Beatles.

Music is a massively personal thing, and every one of us 'connects' to it in different ways. For instance, I'm a tune/melody man - lyrics mean very little to me, so as long as I can bop along to something that 'hooks' me in the right way, I couldn't give a fig what subject a band or singer is signing about and/or how 'deep and meaningful' the lyrics are :)

But then you see I'm not a music 'intellectual' or 'music snob' - I listen to music superficially to put me in a good mood, or to relax me; I'm not into dissecting it and analysing it on an intellectual level, or almost geek-like absorbing every minute detail of a particular artist's history or back catalogue, or comparing so-and-so's guitar playing style to such-and-such, or whatever, although I admire people who can.

However, it's the feeling of almost having to like some famous and arguably talented/inspirational/innovative/revolutionary bands and artists in order to 'impress' one's peers, or have some sort of misguided 'credibility' amongst the 'cognoscenti', that people such as Steve (and I) rebel against!!

When music starts to become snobby or elitist it puts me right off. It's one of the reasons why I've never really got into classical music, even though I enjoy some of it. The pretentious claptrap often attached to it turns me off! Has anyone observed the attitude of some of the snooty tossers who go to a ballet or the opera? Wankas! :mental:

Chaps, this is a quite excellent discussion :cool:

Marco.

P.S I do like The Beatles, The Stones, Pink Floyd and Led Zep, though!

aquapiranha
17-08-2009, 10:11
It's become a bit of a cliche to say bands / artists are overrated, especially Beatles, Nirvana, Oasis.... This irritates me a more than a little bit.

You see, more than a few people have described me as a music snob in the past, because I do listen to quirky and obscure music, but then a lot of the same people shout 'Overrated!' whenever I mention a few bands, including all of the above.

Why can't people just ignore the hype and take the music at face value?

Oasis' first album is good. That's why they're so big, helped by a hopelessly commercial second album, and more of the same ad nauseum. Admittedly Blur were better, a proper band, and yet their first album was pretty poor. It was a shame that they never got quite as big as Oasis, probably because they didn't say derogatory things about other people, get drunk, and end up in all the papers. Back together now though eh?

The Beatles, the beatles, the beatles, of course they're overrated, people harp on about them 24/7. But the truth is, people do that for a reason, they were huge innovators, the whole genre of popular music and rock would be completely different without them. Would you call Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin overrated?

Oh, and the Boo Radleys? Really?!

What about Pulp, Suede and The Divine Comedy? Some of the more interesting britpoppers

Hi Dan. As I said I simply do not like the music produced by the beatles, end of. This has nothing to do with trying to be 'trendy' or whatever. I also happen to like Pulp, Suede and some of the Divine comedy stuff too.

what annoys me about this is just because a band is 'big' you are automatically expected to like them too or you are just trying to buck the trend and be a rebel - what a load of bollocks. There are plenty of other successful bands that I think are total tosh too, utter durge like simply red, every boy band ever (or girl band) coldplay et al and lots, lots more!

Please do not mistake my musical taste (or lack thereof) for anything other than opinion based on the music only. It is not an attempt to be different or trendy.

Thanks.

Spectral Morn
17-08-2009, 10:15
It's become a bit of a cliche to say bands / artists are overrated, especially Beatles, Nirvana, Oasis.... This irritates me a more than a little bit.

You see, more than a few people have described me as a music snob in the past, because I do listen to quirky and obscure music, but then a lot of the same people shout 'Overrated!' whenever I mention a few bands, including all of the above.

Why can't people just ignore the hype and take the music at face value?

Oasis' first album is good. That's why they're so big, helped by a hopelessly commercial second album, and more of the same ad nauseum. Admittedly Blur were better, a proper band, and yet their first album was pretty poor. It was a shame that they never got quite as big as Oasis, probably because they didn't say derogatory things about other people, get drunk, and end up in all the papers. Back together now though eh?

The Beatles, the beatles, the beatles, of course they're overrated, people harp on about them 24/7. But the truth is, people do that for a reason, they were huge innovators, the whole genre of popular music and rock would be completely different without them. Would you call Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin overrated?

Oh, and the Boo Radleys? Really?!

What about Pulp, Suede and The Divine Comedy? Some of the more interesting britpoppers

Hi Dan

Frankly I am tired of people saying how marvelous the Beatles were. The Sgt Pepper album might have influenced some progression in music but Prog Rock was developing all over at and before that album. I suspect it has become trendy and a peer acceptance thing to say you were influenced by SP I don't really buy that. There was a great deal of innovation happening in America and the UK before and at the same time as SP was being recorded.

I dislike John Lennon a lot ( He tried to involve himself when in Ireland with the IRA, once. Terry Hooley (Undertones, Good Vibes record label who I worked briefly for) who heard this as he was there when it happened, went ballistic with him. (I have this account from Terry first hand) so saint Lennon wanted to support terrorists.....were is the peace and love in that. Sir Paul...............poor IMHO....and the others did what ? not a lot. The sum of the parts was better, but not to my taste than the individual bits IMHO.

I do think ZEP while good are again not for me anyway that special (I can hear the safety catch on those guns being clicked off now) Yes some songs are excellent such as the Immigrant Song but again does a few songs make them legends Nope IMHO.

I think the problem is many hold musicians and the like up way to high on their pedestals and this is not healthy IMHO. Perhaps these opinions are more to do with my taste in music but I do hate it when one band is given credit for starting something when in fact there were others coming up with similar ideas at the same time. So commercially SP was a good seller but does that make it the first or best NOPE.


Regards D S D L..................Glides rapidly away summoning his personal body guard for protection.

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 10:27
it is definatly an interesting debate, because it also brings up the question, without wanting to psycoanalise, why we are all so strong in our views? i think as long as everyone here (which i tend to belive that we all are) is being honest in our opinions then it is ok. when i say honest, i mean honest in our selves, i think most people on this forum are sencible enough to make there own decisions - what bugs me is the people who make desitions about music based on concensus! or indeed rebeling against concensus
if i can draw people back to my previous views on celebrity and relate tham to this :
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3614
as a nation we are so interested in celebrity and i dont think many who show that interestet really know why. i personaly hold some of the revolutionary "pop bands" of the 50's and 60's responsible for this. i dont hold it agaisnt them but i definatly think that some of the popularity of the betles is down to inherited hysterior!

i also agree with marco on the likeing music for the emotional effect... i do let my self get interested in lyrics once in a while if i notice something that i can relate to in some way. perhaps if i happen to be listening to a particular peice of music and it speaks about an emotion that i am currently having.. but that is quite rare! as a rule i like music for how it sounds and nothing else.
i went throuh my tenage years listening to radiohead - depressed... and that certainly wasnt down to radioheads lyrics as i challeng anyone to make any sence of most of ok computer! with the odd exception, that album is just random ramblings

expanding slightly on the music/emotion thing -

i think that it is also worth pointing out that i have also grown out of some music because i dont relate to the emotional reaction anymore... deftones for example ... that shit is teenage angst musicified ... i just dont get it anymore!! i used to love it... when i was a teenager!
radiohead on the other hand doesnt just relate to that teenage type depresion ... it is much more easily accesable

Marco
17-08-2009, 11:02
i do let my self get interested in lyrics once in a while if i notice something that i can relate to in some way.


Same here... Usually only, though, when the music is simple acoustic-based, i.e. solo vocalist playing a piano or acoustic guitar, etc. John Martyn is good for this, as I find his lyrics especially poignant :)

Otherwise I get too caught up in the tune/melody to care!

Marco.

DanJennings
17-08-2009, 11:17
oh dear, I seem to have opened up a can of worms....

I hope no one thought my previous post was written in anger, or as a personal attack, because that's not how I meant it at all...

I just meant it as an observation... For example Nirvana, another one of the bands cited as massively overrated. Again, I like them, I became aware of them (like most) around the time of Nevermind, and he is the victim along with many others of "Becoming a rock martyr was the best thing he could have done for his record sales and reputation blah blah blah blah"
Codswallop. They were the biggest band in the world well before he topped himself, and they are so often cited as overrated, that they've become underrated IMHO.

Another point raised was the fact of not liking a band/artist because of something that they've said or done... For example the John Lennon/IRA thing.
I personally try to distance myself from the personality/politics of the musician... My girlfriend for example refuses to listen to anything that Sting ever did, including The Police, and Oysterhead, because of something he said about the unemployed in the 80s. So he's a tosser, he's still a great singer. I have been one of the few that never stopped listening to Michael Jackson, even throughout the Anti Semite, paedophile business. Rock n Roll part 2 by Gary Glitter is a good record
Axl Rose, jesus! where to start! racist, homophobic, a complete arsehole, but great music nonetheless!
Consequently, I don't hate U2, because Bono is an smug, arrogant toss pot, I hate U2 because they make terrible bland music.

Again, please don't take this as an attack, I don't want to be an AOS pariah, I've just got here and I rather like it :)

Oh and hamish, I still like the Deftones and Coal Chamber for that matter, I'm off to trash my bedroom and cut myself! ;)

Beechwoods
17-08-2009, 11:33
I'm in agreement that The Beatles are overrated too :) They were massively influential, but I just don;t like a lot of their music. Funnily enough, I tend to like their songs when they are played by other people. I would argue that The Byrds are massively underrated and that their sound probably resonates more in indie-pop than that of any other band.

Oasis wwere definitely massively overrated, and Nirvana (we must have gone to the same 'school' Dan!). Nirvana came in on the tailend of the sub-pop scene after loads of other bands had written the rules - Dinosaur Jnr, Sonic Youth, Pixies, Mudhoney. And likewise Oasis, who came in on the tailend of the 80's Creation indie-scene, repackaged it for lager drinkers and sold out to the highest bidder.

If no-ones split this thread by this evening I'll do it cos it deserves it's own place!

Marco
17-08-2009, 11:38
No, Nick, I understand why you would do so, but please leave it as it is.

It serves as an excellent example of what AOS is all about, and I'm not taking about thread drift; I'm talking about the way in which people here can offer constructive criticism quite forcefully, but with no-one falling out, and then go on to discuss emotive subjects, such as the aspects of music currently being debated, in an honest and heart-felt way without being villified or made to feel 'inferior' in any way...

This for me is what makes our forum special and different from most other places :)

Marco.

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 11:43
dan -
ha coal chamber.. i forgot about them... grat stuff! i still quite like sytem of a down too
im just not sure about deftones... it just makes me feel litereally a bit dead inside! a feeling i think i was aiming for at 14-20 ish (uderstandably i think) i dont really like that feeling anymore ... maybe its as much down to the music its self as it is the getting over a period of my life that wasnt very happy that i dont like them anymore?? which i supose brings up the idea of assosiatative memory and music... i love spin doctors for example whenever i hear them i do remember the feeling of being a kid (before the shit hit the fan ..)

aquapiranha
17-08-2009, 11:45
Dan. Nothing you have said is in the least offensive, I think that people just like different stuff, regardless of how 'big' the bands are - we just like different things it is human nature.

I also try not to let my personal feelings about a band member get in the way of the music, though in truth most of the artists I like I have no issues with.

:)

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 11:47
pixes... now theres a band! and a song 'where is my mind' do you remember i had that as my phone ring tone dan ...those were "interesting" days eh?


ooo ... im being all cliquey with dan now :)

DanJennings
17-08-2009, 11:57
did I ever tell you that I met the singer of Coal Chamber a couple of times?

I don't remember the pixies ringtone I'm afraid, I can remember Chris trying to sing it in his Westlife voice and getting the words wrong though...

Oh yes, in contrast to my previous posts, has anyone heard the song 'Learning To Hate The Beatles' by the Tom Morton Two? Funny stuff...

I never really did my personal slant on the Beatles did I? I don't really like the twee early stuff, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Help etc...
In my opinion, they got good around Rubber Soul, and I love pretty much everything after that. Yes even the druggy experimental stuff. Especially but not limited to, 'Tomorrow Never Knows', the whole of Abbey Road, and the first half of the White Album

Spectral Morn
17-08-2009, 12:28
oh dear, I seem to have opened up a can of worms....

I hope no one thought my previous post was written in anger, or as a personal attack, because that's not how I meant it at all...

I just meant it as an observation... For example Nirvana, another one of the bands cited as massively overrated. Again, I like them, I became aware of them (like most) around the time of Nevermind, and he is the victim along with many others of "Becoming a rock martyr was the best thing he could have done for his record sales and reputation blah blah blah blah"
Codswallop. They were the biggest band in the world well before he topped himself, and they are so often cited as overrated, that they've become underrated IMHO.

Another point raised was the fact of not liking a band/artist because of something that they've said or done... For example the John Lennon/IRA thing.
I personally try to distance myself from the personality/politics of the musician... My girlfriend for example refuses to listen to anything that Sting ever did, including The Police, and Oysterhead, because of something he said about the unemployed in the 80s. So he's a tosser, he's still a great singer. I have been one of the few that never stopped listening to Michael Jackson, even throughout the Anti Semite, paedophile business. Rock n Roll part 2 by Gary Glitter is a good record
Axl Rose, jesus! where to start! racist, homophobic, a complete arsehole, but great music nonetheless!
Consequently, I don't hate U2, because Bono is an smug, arrogant toss pot, I hate U2 because they make terrible bland music.

Again, please don't take this as an attack, I don't want to be an AOS pariah, I've just got here and I rather like it :)

Oh and hamish, I still like the Deftones and Coal Chamber for that matter, I'm off to trash my bedroom and cut myself! ;)

Hi Dan

No I have not fallen out with you nor are you an AOS Pariah :)

The John Lennon IRA thing was serious at the time and frankly is a classic example of where pop/celebrities should (if they have one) engage brain before opening their mouths. I have no issue with people in fame positions using that to raise or support issues, but it should be carefully considered before being commented on.

Actually I don't like any of the post Beatles solo artists perhaps with the exception of Live and let die by Wings. John and Georges post Beatles music is self indulgent/fatuous/hypocritical rubbish IMHO....however many like it I don't. And Ringo ummmm Thomas the Tank Engine.

However where I would take issue with what you say would be if a musician/group are involved in criminal or offensive behaviour, despite their musical talent why should we support them in that area. To do that is to say that what they do or say elsewhere is okay. I say no to that. It is fact this sheep mentality that has allowed our society to slip to where it is now, same with politics. There must be accountability for ones actions....in all areas of life.


Regards D S D L

DanJennings
17-08-2009, 12:45
Actually I don't like any of the post Beatles solo artists perhaps with the exception of Live and let die by Wings. John and Georges post Beatles music is self indulgent/fatuous/hypocritical rubbish IMHO....however many like it I don't. And Ringo ummmm Thomas the Tank Engine.


I'll happily admit that most of the post beatles stuff was sub par, with a couple of exceptions

John: Cold Turkey and Instant Karma were quite good... The Ono stuff was nonsense, and to quote the aforementioned Tom Morton song "I will commit a serious crime if I hear Imagine just one more time"

Paul: I see your Live and Let Die, and raise you Band on the Run. You can stick the frog chorus and mull of kintyre somewhere rude.

George: you can't take Travelling Wilburys away from him can you?! one great album and one OK album, and one great Tom Petty album which was basically Travelling wilbury album 3

Ringo: Erm, quite, well he's still alive...

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 13:00
Ringo: Erm, quite, well he's still alive...

and aparently getting eggy about being called ringo... dug your own grave there didnt you mate!

i quite like his thomas the tank naration though.. it somehow really suited it!
he was in an episode of the simpsons too dont forget!

Spectral Morn
17-08-2009, 13:46
I'll happily admit that most of the post beatles stuff was sub par, with a couple of exceptions

John: Cold Turkey and Instant Karma were quite good... The Ono stuff was nonsense, and to quote the aforementioned Tom Morton song "I will commit a serious crime if I hear Imagine just one more time"

Paul: I see your Live and Let Die, and raise you Band on the Run. You can stick the frog chorus and mull of kintyre somewhere rude.

George: you can't take Travelling Wilburys away from him can you?! one great album and one OK album, and one great Tom Petty album which was basically Travelling wilbury album 3

Ringo: Erm, quite, well he's still alive...


Hi Dan

Very much a case of the parts being greater than that one member. George waste of space. Tom, Roy, Guy who used to be in ELO all more talented IMHO.

Imagine theres no talent and a song to kill yourself too, theres no hope in life..............frankly that one song would have had me condemn him to life on Devils island with no parole ever, along with Yoko.

Regards D S D L

DanJennings
17-08-2009, 14:23
Imagine theres no talent and a song to kill yourself too, theres no hope in life..............frankly that one song would have had me condemn him to life on Devils island with no parole ever, along with Yoko.


*edit

nuff said... Yech

DanJennings
17-08-2009, 14:30
Hi Dan
Very much a case of the parts being greater than that one member. George waste of space. Tom, Roy, Guy who used to be in ELO all more talented IMHO.


Sorry, this slipped through the net first time....
the guy's called Jeff Lynne, but more importantly, no Bob?!?!

Did you forget, or just not keen?

We're going to have to agree to disagree on George, I think he was my favourite Beatle, (while my guitar gently weeps, something, taxman, here comes the sun etc) and an asset to the Wilburys.

and lets not forget, no George Harrison, no Withnail and I, Life Of Brian, Lock Stock

Joe
17-08-2009, 17:22
Mmmm... Possibly.

If we're talking indie (are we, as it's a somewhat nebulous term?), my fav bands are (in no particular order):

Joy Division
The Pixies
Sonic Youth
Belle And Sebastian
Teenage Fan Club
Franz Ferdinand
The Flaming Lips
Death Cab For Cutie
Modest Mouse
Pavement
Stone Roses

:)

Marco.

I can go for all those except for Modest Mouse of whom (grammar) I have never heard, but the Boo Radleys are better than the rest put together.

The best groups ever, in no particular order, are:
The Beatles
The Velvet Underground
The Stooges
The New York Dolls
Television
Pink Floyd before Syd Barrett left
Fleetwood Mac before Peter Green left
Fairport Convention before Sandy Denny left
Half Man Half Biscuit
The Lovin Spoonful
Little Feat
The Beach Boys
The Boo Radleys
The Fall
The Kinks
The Who.

This is science fact and not open to debate.

Joe
17-08-2009, 17:26
We're going to have to agree to disagree on George, I think he was my favourite Beatle, (while my guitar gently weeps, something, taxman, here comes the sun etc)

But also the dreadful sitar stuff like Within You, Without You, and the direct rip-off of 'He's So Fine' that was 'My Sweet Lord'.

A couple of singles aside, Beatles' solo stuff was dreck. Macca did an ace Lennon imitation on 'Let Me Roll It', and I love 'Instant Karma!' and "Mind Games', but basically that's it.

Joe
17-08-2009, 17:30
does that make sense? I am not rubbishing anyone elses opinion, but people who say you are not a proper music lover because you do not like one band in particular is a bit sad really.

:confused:

I'm not saying you're not a music lover, just that not liking the Beatles is wrong, in the same way that not liking Shakespeare is wrong. They were both the best at what they did, and hugely influential.

Joe
17-08-2009, 17:34
Oh, and the Boo Radleys? Really?!

What about Pulp, Suede and The Divine Comedy? Some of the more interesting britpoppers

Yes, really. Martin Carr was/is about the best songwriter in these sceptred isles. Pulp I like, The Divine Comedy I can take or leave, and Suede just struck me as a poor take-off of Bowie's Diamond Dogs era stuff.

Joe
17-08-2009, 17:47
Another point raised was the fact of not liking a band/artist because of something that they've said or done... For example the John Lennon/IRA thing.
I personally try to distance myself from the personality/politics of the musician... My girlfriend for example refuses to listen to anything that Sting ever did, including The Police, and Oysterhead, because of something he said about the unemployed in the 80s. So he's a tosser, he's still a great singer. I have been one of the few that never stopped listening to Michael Jackson, even throughout the Anti Semite, paedophile business. Rock n Roll part 2 by Gary Glitter is a good record
Axl Rose, jesus! where to start! racist, homophobic, a complete arsehole, but great music nonetheless!
Consequently, I don't hate U2, because Bono is an smug, arrogant toss pot, I hate U2 because they make terrible bland music.


Well, up to a point (though I think Sting's an arsehole and I've never liked his music).

However if you know someone is a deeply unpleasant person (a child abuser, say) is it morally acceptable to support them by buying their records? Different if you find out 'after the event'; it'd be maybe going too far to destroy or sell on all of their records once their murky secrets emerge, but if you know the facts isn't there a moral obligation to stop supporting them financially?

Marco
17-08-2009, 18:23
Hi Joe,


I'm not saying you're not a music lover, just that not liking the Beatles is wrong, in the same way that not liking Shakespeare is wrong. They were both the best at what they did, and hugely influential.

If I may step in here in support of Steve - the fact is, if someone's music or literary style does nothing for you, then there's nothing you can do about it. You can't *make* yourself like something just because accepted wisdom (or 'experts') says it is "the best" or "hugely influential". Your brain decides what it decides.

However, you can admire and respect something though, and acknowledge how influential it is or has been, but still dislike it (or at least not enjoy it). I feel that way about Shakespeare.

That's the point I think Steve is making. Basically, The Beatles just don't 'do it' for him, and there's nothing "wrong" with that whatsoever.


However if you know someone is a deeply unpleasant person (a child abuser, say) is it morally acceptable to support them by buying their records? Different if you find out 'after the event'; it'd be maybe going too far to destroy or sell on all of their records once their murky secrets emerge, but if you know the facts isn't there a moral obligation to stop supporting them financially?


Are we talking here about Glitter or Jacko? If it's the latter, I've never believed for one second that he was a child abuser. F*cked up and more than a little loopy-loo, undoubtedly, (some would argue for good reason) - but a child abuser? No.

Marco.

Beechwoods
17-08-2009, 18:41
I'm not saying you're not a music lover, just that not liking the Beatles is wrong, in the same way that not liking Shakespeare is wrong. They were both the best at what they did, and hugely influential.

I would argue strongly that being influential, does not make you the best at something :) Bob Dylan has been massively influential, and some of his songs are fantastic, but when he plays and sings them :confused: change the record!

I've no idea why Shakespeare is so highly rated. Why him over Marlowe, John Donne, Plato, Homer. Half his things were retellings of traditional tales.

I'm not dissing the Beatles, but try as I have, I cannot get into their music. Modern culture's fetishisation of the Beatles and their legacy diminishes the influence that other bands have had on modern music. If saying that's wrong then fair enough

:gig:

Joe
17-08-2009, 19:30
I've no idea why Shakespeare is so highly rated. Why him over Marlowe, John Donne, Plato, Homer. Half his things were retellings of traditional tales.

Well, unless your Ancient Greek's a lot better than mine you'll be reading Homer and Plato in translation, whereas Shakespeare's English is easily understandable to any educated Englishman. Donne wrote no plays, and Marlowe's few plays are nowhere near as good as Shakespeare's (Doctor Faustus comes closest). Shakespeare stands head and shoulders above any other writer before and since. Almost every writer believes that; the only exception I can think of is Tolstoy, who was barking mad.

Spectral Morn
17-08-2009, 20:11
Well, unless your Ancient Greek's a lot better than mine you'll be reading Homer and Plato in translation, whereas Shakespeare's English is easily understandable to any educated Englishman. Donne wrote no plays, and Marlowe's few plays are nowhere near as good as Shakespeare's (Doctor Faustus comes closest). Shakespeare stands head and shoulders above any other writer before and since. Almost every writer believes that; the only exception I can think of is Tolstoy, who was barking mad.


Generally thats true, but many words which are used still today have a very different meaning now as well as many words not used anymore i.e Peradventure. Elizabeathen English is beautiful one of the things that makes the Hebrew element of the 1611 version of the bible ( King James) so beautiful. The pace and richness of English then matched the flow of Hebrew. The Greek English is not as good IMHO.

It has been said that Shakespear may have contributed to that 1611 Bible, however as most of it about 3/4 is from Mathew Tyndales earlier work I would not be so sure(He Tyndale was burnt at the stake for that work).

I think many are put off older writing as it contains thoughts and a world view that does not match todays as well as the language being used in a strange way. I think the richness of older English (Victorian backwards) and the use of the language was fantastic unlike today F this F that language. We are missing so much its very sad.

Regards D S D L

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 20:21
i thought at this stage, without prejudice, it would be worth copy and pasting a few factual definitions!

opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

just throwing that into the mix... hope it helps people play fair

;):lolsign:

i personally prefer neil gaiman, douglas adams and jasper fford... to name a few, over shakespear ... but that is just my opinion :)

Joe
17-08-2009, 20:26
Hi Joe,



If I may step in here in support of Steve - the fact is, if someone's music or literary style does nothing for you, then there's nothing you can do about it. You can't *make* yourself like something just because accepted wisdom (or 'experts') says it is "the best" or "hugely influential". Your brain decides what it decides.

However, you can admire and respect something though, and acknowledge how influential it is or has been, but still dislike it (or at least not enjoy it). I feel that way about Shakespeare.

That's the point I think Steve is making. Basically, The Beatles just don't 'do it' for him, and there's nothing "wrong" with that whatsoever.



Are we talking here about Glitter or Jacko? If it's the latter, I've never believed for one second that he was a child abuser. F*cked up and more than a little loopy-loo, undoubtedly, (some would argue for good reason) - but a child abuser? No.

Marco.

On the first point if someone said to you 'Tannoy speakers are rubbish' would you not point out to him that he was wrong, even if you knew there was no chance of changing his mind?

On the second point, I didn't have anyone in particular in mind; it was a purely hypothetical question about whether you can separate the artist from the work. Another example; someone once asked me how I could buy Will Self's books knowing that he was quite likely to spend his earnings on drugs, which made me think.

Joe
17-08-2009, 20:31
i thought at this stage, without prejudice, it would be worth copy and pasting a few factual definitions!

opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences


Are those factual definitions, or just someone's opinion of what the words mean?

Spectral Morn
17-08-2009, 20:31
i thought at this stage, without prejudice, it would be worth copy and pasting a few factual definitions!

opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof

fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

just throwing that into the mix... hope it helps people play fair

;):lolsign:

i personally prefer neil gaiman, douglas adams and jasper fford... to name a few, over shakespear ... but that is just my opinion :)

:scratch::confused: in relation to?


Regards D S D L

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 20:32
opinions
but can you debate them as facts?

Spectral Morn
17-08-2009, 20:34
On the first point if someone said to you 'Tannoy speakers are rubbish' would you not point out to him that he was wrong, even if you knew there was no chance of changing his mind?

On the second point, I didn't have anyone in particular in mind; it was a purely hypothetical question about whether you can separate the artist from the work. Another example; someone once asked me how I could buy Will Self's books knowing that he was quite likely to spend his earnings on drugs, which made me think.


I agree with that. After Billy Connolly's comments about Ken Biggly I have not watched anything by him again, in fact he is banned in this house, because of that and that alone.

Regards D S D L

Spectral Morn
17-08-2009, 20:35
opinions
but can you debate them as facts?

What is truth?


Regards D S D L

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 20:39
do you want me to copy and paste another deffinition? ;) this seems to be in danger of getting quite philisophical

Spectral Morn
17-08-2009, 20:41
do you want me to copy and paste another deffinition? ;) this seems to be in danger of getting quite philisophical

Thats in the very heart, soul and nature of thread drift...go for it.


Regards D S D L

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 20:51
Thats in the very heart, soul and nature of thread drift...go for it.


Regards D S D L


truth, in my veiw, is possibly as subjective as opinion. one can belive something as truth, eg the existance of god, completely but that doesnt mean its fact!
where as 'fact' in the world that we live in (at least should be) is something that is a universaly shared opininion eg the sky, on a sunny day, is blue
this could of course be challenged by the idea that, perseption from one person to the next might be vastly different. eg you might see the sky in a colour that i would call red... but the fact is you still call it blue

symon
17-08-2009, 21:03
Facts, truths, opinions all change. Musically I would be surprised if none of us here have never had one of those epiphanies where you suddenly get into a 'band' or style of music that you didn't like before.

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 21:09
in my opinion there are very few real facts, philisophically speaking there may actually be none... fact, to me is a very strong word

Marco
17-08-2009, 21:20
Joe,


On the first point if someone said to you 'Tannoy speakers are rubbish' would you not point out to him that he was wrong, even if you knew there was no chance of changing his mind?


Well, first of all, some Tannoy speakers *are* rubbish - it's only the large vintage DCs that I rate! ;)

More seriously, no I wouldn't tell them that they were wrong. I would ask them why they thought Tannoys were rubbish, what experience they've had with them, which models they've heard, and in what context, to ascertain how they arrived at their conclusion.

If it was obvious that the person concerned had genuine reasons for not liking them, then I'd simply accept their right to have a different opinion from me...........and so it should be with you, with people who dislike/don't enjoy or 'rate' The Beatles or Shakespeare. Not doing so is rather arrogant.

The fact is, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' in these matters. People like what they like or hate what they hate.

Marco.

Barry
17-08-2009, 21:54
This is turning out to be one of the best threads we have had in AoS! I don't know, you turn your back for a few moments to look at tumescent producing automobiles and you find the thread has moved on to arguments over tastes in music, the moral aspects of a performers politics and foibles, the appreciation of Elizabethian english and finally 'what is truth'?

Well I can't really contribute much to some of these musings except to comment on one or two statements. Apologies for not citing the source but the authors will know who they are.

'Bruce bloody Springsteen' - I seem to be in the minority of one, but I don't think that all his stuff sounds the same. I would agree that you have to see the man, only then can you appreciate the records.

'Amy Whinehouse' - totally agree, she has a good voice, but poor diction and is a poor performer. The next Aretha Franklin she most definitely ain't.

'Oasis v. Blur, Pulp and all the other Britpop of the late '90s' - Well I liked Oasis as well as some Blur, Pulp and The Verve. Yes it was a return to Beatles like pop but nothing wrong with that and was a refreshing change from the Stock-Waterman-Aitken pap that preceded it.

'Teenage Kicks - teenage angst 'musicified'?' Well what's wong with that? Most of the Beach Boys 'Pet Sounds' is that; and that recording inspired 'Sgt Pepper'.

'Radiohead' - just what do people see in them? I must be missing something.

'Lennon v McCartney' Again a matter of choice; I followed Lennon post Beatles, whereas Macca's stuff did nothing for me.

'Lennon's politics' - totally agree that Lennon had some very poorly thought out politics and his dabbling in the 'Irish question' did him no good. The track 'Imagine' is, I believe, one of the most questioning songs to have been written; listen to the lyrics carefully. Ironically Lennon was being quite hypocritical when he wrote those lyrics; he was one of the most materialistic and intolerant around at that time.

'Should we let a performer's opinions/lifestyle/peccadillos influence whether we like their work?' - Quite a few of my favorite artists are or were people who I would not necessary like or would get on with. I'm in the middle of a biography about Frank Zappa and whilst I love a lot of what Zappa did, he definitely had a most singular and unattractive attitude to women. I doesn't prevent me enjoying his work. Would that extend to a paedophile? No of course not - but the only case I can think of is Garry Glitter, and all of his stuff was rubbish so I'm not going to have a problem over that (We can leave Jerry Lee Lewis to one side here).

Finally 'What is truth?' Where the terms 'fact' and 'opinion' are well defined, the question of truth: what is it, where do we find it, what colour is it ....? has been taxing philosophers since Socrates. The dictionary definition:

"Conformity with fact; agreement with reality; accuracy, corectness (of statement or thought) Genuineness, reality, actual existance ...."

is not very helpful, unless in the context of agreement with known and wildly corroborated facts; and it is this definition that I presume is meant in this thread. Incidently the axiomatic 'truth' that 'the sky is blue', is not a truth. What is true, is that the sky scatters light of predominately one colour, or frequency. That colour is called blue by definition; the colour you see is not necessary the colour that I see.


No doubt the thread will have meandered on again whilst I have been typing this..........

symon
17-08-2009, 22:00
Facts have an interesting habit of becoming not-fact! And this is, I suppose, a good thing in some respects as it reflects human growth and change. Some terrible 'facts' get disproved as humans move through time, changing and developing their understanding of the world we live in. I'm sure some facts we wish had not changed. Others have only led to the good - think of all those medical facts held dear by Roman Doctors which now seem like so much mysticism and error!
I'm sure many of the facts we hold on to today will be equally smiled upon as childish, immature fancy in centuries to come.

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 22:22
That's why I think fact is a very strong word... It gets banded around alot without much thought!
In fact if you take a certain philosophical view the only real fact is your self... anything else can be debated... One can even qustion ones own existance down to the point of only really knowing you must be fact because you can think! Cogito ugo sum....

Barry - as for the sky blue thing... I agree wholeheartedly

symon
17-08-2009, 22:38
Some philosphers would even challenge that assumption!

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 22:51
Indeed... But my brain stops working after a point, and you gotta start somewhere! I'm happy beliving in me, wondering about most other things, and not questioning the thing that I'm not sure have an answer

symon
17-08-2009, 22:57
Well, yeah. I don't think I even got anywhere near starting to get my head around that one.

Alex_UK
17-08-2009, 23:01
There is no truth, just your perspective on the information your senses have received.

Agree Barry, this is a great thread, though not so sure Jerry who started it all would agree...

symon
17-08-2009, 23:20
Well, if you can't have thread drift in a thread on thread drift, what can you do?

The Vinyl Adventure
17-08-2009, 23:44
I like to think he would apreciate the irony

Joe
18-08-2009, 07:29
'Lennon's politics' - totally agree that Lennon had some very poorly thought out politics and his dabbling in the 'Irish question' did him no good.


I liked National Lampoon's parody on Macca's 'Give Ireland Back to the Irish':

'Give Ireland back to the Irish
Give Lapland back to the Lapps
Give China back to the Chinese
And Yoko back to the Japs'

jandl100
18-08-2009, 07:49
i wonder what jerry makes of all this?

... and another problem with Thread Drift is that after I've given up looking at the thread 'cos of all the irrelevant drivel that gets posted, I can miss something that's relevant! ;)

Marco
18-08-2009, 08:55
Point taken, Jerry.

Some "irrelevant drivel" lightens the mood though and is fun, which is as far as I'm concerned is primarily what participating in forums is all about :)

We also like discussions to 'flow' naturally, just like it happens in real life.

Marco.

jandl100
18-08-2009, 09:01
Yes, I agree - but you do have to remember that I am a boring old fart. :)

Alex_UK
18-08-2009, 09:15
you do have to remember that I am a boring old fart. :)

ahh, 149 posts before we get back to the original point! :lolsign:

Mike
18-08-2009, 09:17
What?... The original point was 'Jerry's an old fart'? :lolsign:

Alex_UK
18-08-2009, 09:21
Post #1


Or maybe I'm just a boring old fart. :lol:

Post #149


you do have to remember that I am a boring old fart.

How can anyone say this thread has drifted?? :ner:

Mike
18-08-2009, 09:23
It was SO long ago....

Maybe I'm a senile old fart! :lolsign:

twelvebears
18-08-2009, 11:27
While I agree that thread drift can be a bit of a PITHA and slightly annoying to both the original poster and someone trying to 'pick the bones' out of the subject, AND there are some people who are often the ringleaders of said drift (*cough* Marco?) :), I would say that AOS is still by far the most welcoming of any of the forums I've come across.

In fact I'd say that members here go out of there way to be supportive and encouraging of 'newbies', and if anything, are only prone to bait certain opinionated muppets who pop up every now and again a spout a load of pish.

The Vinyl Adventure
18-08-2009, 11:47
and there we have it the complete circle back to the begining (the real original point, not jerrys old fartedness)

Covenant
18-08-2009, 19:07
Hey-I am the biggest old fart, I have the avatar to prove it.

The Vinyl Adventure
18-08-2009, 19:42
I'm 26 and I feel like an old fart... I'm going to make a brilliant grumpy old man I recon!

DaveK
18-08-2009, 19:50
Hi Hamish,
What do you mean, you're going to make a brilliant grumpy old man - it is not necessarily age dependant :lolsign: .
Cheers,

The Vinyl Adventure
18-08-2009, 19:53
cheers ........ ;)

Alex_UK
18-08-2009, 20:03
I was going to say I'm an old fart but I feel like a 26 year old - trouble is she can run faster than me!;)

Barry
18-08-2009, 20:05
That's why I think fact is a very strong word... It gets banded around alot without much thought!
In fact if you take a certain philosophical view the only real fact is your self... anything else can be debated... One can even qeustion one's own existence down to the point of only really knowing you must be fact because you can think! Cogito ergo sum....

Barry - as for the sky blue thing... I agree wholeheartedly

Descartes’s dictum; Cogito ergo sum, is oft quoted and usually misunderstood. What Descartes was trying to say was what is known as Cartesian ‘doubt’, expressing doubt on the question of reality. How do we know what is real? How do we know that our perception of an external reality is not just a figment of our imagination – a hallucination or no more than a daytime dream? Descartes even went so far that there was a malevolent demon assigned to everyone, whose job it was to deliberately lead us astray, deceive us in our perception. To pursue this problem further, Descartes asked "is there anything that I can be sure of?" Yes, the fact that no matter what the malicious demon could do, the fact that Descartes was thinking about this was indisputable – hence ‘I think therefore I am’ (Cogito ergo sum).

Descartes was then able to go a little further, having accepted doubts about the sensory perception of the material world and expressed it as the Cogito, Descartes realised that none of the apparent features of the human body was necessary in the this process, so all that is left is thought itself, so Sum res cognitans: ‘I am a thing that thinks’.

Now you might think that Monsieur Descartes was now still ‘locked or trapped inside’ his body with no more than the contents of his mind (which may or may not be distorted by the ‘malicious demon’). However the clever Mr Descartes realises one concept that he has, along with everyone else, is the concept of God. The concept of God is Descartes’s ‘Get out of prison’ card. His actual argument, or 'proof', of God’s existence is somewhat specious (more or less running along the lines of St Anselm’s ontological argument), however Descartes’s God is a Christian God and Descartes’s successive reasoning runs roughly as follows:

“Because God created me and is benevolent, he is concerned with my intellectual welfare as well as my moral one. If I do ‘my bit’, then God will validate the things which I am very strongly disposed to believe. Now I find that however much criticism I make of my ideas, however carefully I think out what is involved in my beliefs of the physical world, although I can suspend judgement in the doubt (I wouldn’t have got to this point if I could not), I do have a very strong tendency to believe that there is a material world. And since I have this disposition and I have done everything in my power to make sure that my beliefs are not founded in error, then God will at the end make sure that I’m not fundamentally and systematically mistaken. That is, I can rightfully believe that there is such a (material) world”.

(Quoted with very slight modification from Brian Magee, ‘The Great Philosophers’, OUP, 1987, ISBN 0-19-289322)

Clever Old Descartes! This is what comes of staying in bed until midday (Descartes’s modus operandii).

Now I ought to go and play some ‘intellectual’ music, something like: Schoenberg’s, Verklarte Nahct’ perhaps. No, on second thoughts it will be Ian Dury and the Blockheads, ‘New Boots and Panties’ (steady Marco, steady…). This says just as much about the human condition as anything else.

The Vinyl Adventure
18-08-2009, 20:22
im not sure i like the whole "god get out clause" it seems to go back on what he has said in the first meditations
i also question his reasons for turning to god in the way he does ... his proving of a god seems a bit religiously biased to me. the whole point of the first meditaions is saying there might be an evil demon.. so then why not say that there might be a god? it just seems a bit of a thin argument to me
(and thats comeing from me, someone who does have faith.. although not nessasaryly in the god decartes is talking about)
im not sure im clever enough to put accross my point properly here without digging out the book i got this all from in the first place... so i hope it makes sence??

Barry
18-08-2009, 20:33
im not sure i like the whole "god get out clause" it seems to go back on what he has said in the first meditations
i also question his reasons for turning to god in the way he does ... his proving of a god seems a bit religiously biased to me. the whole point of the first meditaions is saying there might be an evil demon.. so then why not say that there might be a god? it just seems a bit of a thin argument to me
(and thats comeing from me, someone who does have faith.. although not nessasaryly in the god decartes is talking about)
im not sure im clever enough to put accross my point properly here without digging out the book i got this all from in the first place... so i hope it makes sence??

You have to understand Descartes's argument for the existence of God and how that concept is different to Descartes's concept of the 'malicious demon'. You also have to understand that everybody at that time in France, had more or less the same image or concept of God. And if they didn't believe in God, they could and would be so persuaded by Descartes's arguments. Skating on thin ice indeed!

The Vinyl Adventure
18-08-2009, 20:43
ok...... so im right in thinking, or at least understanding, that the god he turned to was just because he had previously belived in god. and as such just decided to prove his own belives. that doesnt sit well with me, it is an alterior motive. not to mention the fact that as i understand it in those days doing anything that might disprove god was a major no no and might end up in a loss of a head!

Barry
18-08-2009, 21:49
ok...... so im right in thinking, or at least understanding, that the god he turned to was just because he had previously belived in god. and as such just decided to prove his own belives. that doesnt sit well with me, it is an alterior motive. not to mention the fact that as i understand it in those days doing anything that might disprove god was a major no no and might end up in a loss of a head!

I’m not sure that other members of AoS are particularly interested in this theological debate and I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to take it much further, but I’ll quote some more from Magee’s book (actually a series of discussions with specialists on various philosophers. In this case Bernard Williams of the University of California).

“…at the earlier stages of the proceedings the most obvious way of inferring the world from his experiences isn’t valid. He’s now got to give you a way to which he claims is valid. Having got to the point at which he recognises nothing except the contents of his consciousness, its obvious that if he’s going to put the world back he’s got to do it entirely out of the contents of his consciousness – there is nothing else available to him. So he got to find something in the contents of his consciousness that leads outside of himself. He claims that what this is, is the idea of God. He discovers among the contents of his consciousness the conception of God. And he argues that this is unique among all the ideas that he has; among all the things that are in his mind, this alone is such that the mere fact he has this idea proves that there really is something corresponding to it, that is to say, there really is a God.”

The argument that Descartes uses relies on a supposedly necessary principle to the effect that the lesser cannot give rise to, or be the cause of, the greater.

“Descartes is sure that he has an idea of God, and that is an idea of an infinite thing. Although in itself it’s only an idea, the fact that it is the idea of the infinite thing demands a very special explanation. Descartes claims that no finite creature, as he knows himself to be, could possibly have given rise to such an idea, the idea of an infinite being. It could have been implanted in him only by God himself: as Descartes memorably puts it at one point, as a mark of the maker on his work. God as it were, signed him by leaving in him this infinite idea of God himself. When he reflects on that the lesser cannot give rise to the greater, he realises since he has this idea of God, it can only be only because there is actually a God who has created him.”

By asserting that the world with which philosophers and scientists deal with is given to us by a God whose existence and benevolence are self-evident, Descartes has not so much answered the sceptic as tried to pre-empt him.

“ it is essential to Descartes position that he believes that these arguments that introduce God will be assented to by any person of good faith who concentrate on them enough. That’s absolutely essential. It would ruin his whole position if he accepted the idea that whether you believe in God is a matter of culture or psychological upbringing, and that perfectly sensible people can disagree about whether there’s a God or not however hard they think about it. For Descartes, to deny the existence of God when confronted with these arguments would be as perverse and as totally in bad faith as it would be to deny that twice two is four. The idea is that if you put these proofs before the sceptic and lead him to properly through them, and if the sceptic is an honest person, and is not just mouthing words or trying to impress must assent. Some people have not assented because they haven’t thought hard enough; they have not treated these questions in an orderly manner. A lot of sceptics are no doubt fakes, who simply go around making a rhetorical position and don’t really think about it. But if you you’re in good faith and think hard enough about it, then you will come to see this truth and then you cannot consistently deny the existence of the external world. That’s what Descartes believed.”

DaveK
18-08-2009, 22:18
Hi you (two) guys,
For me, please keep this thread going - I can't claim to understand or follow a lot of it but I do find it interesting, ney fascinating - and who knows, some of it may sink in and I may become a little wiser :lolsign: .
Cheers,

The Vinyl Adventure
18-08-2009, 23:08
I’m not sure that other members of AoS are particularly interested in this theological debate and I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable to take it much further, but I’ll quote some more from Magee’s book (actually a series of discussions with specialists on various philosophers. In this case Bernard Williams of the University of California).

“…at the earlier stages of the proceedings the most obvious way of inferring the world from his experiences isn’t valid. He’s now got to give you a way to which he claims is valid. Having got to the point at which he recognises nothing except the contents of his consciousness, its obvious that if he’s going to put the world back he’s got to do it entirely out of the contents of his consciousness – there is nothing else available to him. So he got to find something in the contents of his consciousness that leads outside of himself. He claims that what this is, is the idea of God. He discovers among the contents of his consciousness the conception of God. And he argues that this is unique among all the ideas that he has; among all the things that are in his mind, this alone is such that the mere fact he has this idea proves that there really is something corresponding to it, that is to say, there really is a God.”

The argument that Descartes uses relies on a supposedly necessary principle to the effect that the lesser cannot give rise to, or be the cause of, the greater.

“Descartes is sure that he has an idea of God, and that is an idea of an infinite thing. Although in itself it’s only an idea, the fact that it is the idea of the infinite thing demands a very special explanation. Descartes claims that no finite creature, as he knows himself to be, could possibly have given rise to such an idea, the idea of an infinite being. It could have been implanted in him only by God himself: as Descartes memorably puts it at one point, as a mark of the maker on his work. God as it were, signed him by leaving in him this infinite idea of God himself. When he reflects on that the lesser cannot give rise to the greater, he realises since he has this idea of God, it can only be only because there is actually a God who has created him.”

By asserting that the world with which philosophers and scientists deal with is given to us by a God whose existence and benevolence are self-evident, Descartes has not so much answered the sceptic as tried to pre-empt him.

“ it is essential to Descartes position that he believes that these arguments that introduce God will be assented to by any person of good faith who concentrate on them enough. That’s absolutely essential. It would ruin his whole position if he accepted the idea that whether you believe in God is a matter of culture or psychological upbringing, and that perfectly sensible people can disagree about whether there’s a God or not however hard they think about it. For Descartes, to deny the existence of God when confronted with these arguments would be as perverse and as totally in bad faith as it would be to deny that twice two is four. The idea is that if you put these proofs before the sceptic and lead him to properly through them, and if the sceptic is an honest person, and is not just mouthing words or trying to impress must assent. Some people have not assented because they haven’t thought hard enough; they have not treated these questions in an orderly manner. A lot of sceptics are no doubt fakes, who simply go around making a rhetorical position and don’t really think about it. But if you you’re in good faith and think hard enough about it, then you will come to see this truth and then you cannot consistently deny the existence of the external world. That’s what Descartes believed.”

to be fair when put that way, its a fairly good agument!
i quite like the idea of infinity being a makers mark, but surely that in its self could just be a product of the evil demon's trickery... im fairly certain that this argument against decarts god is know as a cartisian circle...

but yeah, i too am not sufficiantly educated to go much ferther than this... sorry dave
i can recomend a book called "think" by simon blackburn if you are interested... its the only way i know anything of what i speak. and i only really rememberd decarts meditaions because i used to particuly like the idea of questioning my suroundings/perseption in the way he does.. trying to find answers for my self etc
ironically the answers i personaly have found, that personally sit best with me, aren't actuallly explainable.. and that for me is what makes them the answers... after all it would be to easy if we could just explain it to each other ....
i think i might well be most of the way to being branded a hippy at the mo so i shall leave it there i think!

jandl100
19-08-2009, 08:46
“Descartes is sure that he has an idea of God, and that is an idea of an infinite thing. ..... Descartes claims that no finite creature, as he knows himself to be, could possibly have given rise to such an idea, the idea of an infinite being. It could have been implanted in him only by God himself:.”

Personally, I think that this is where the whole argument falls flat. 'Infinite' is merely a word - the actual concept of infinite is as beyond real human understanding as ever. As far as I am concerned, he has deluded himself into believing what he wanted to believe in the first place.

I speak as an astronomer by education (degree and 3 years postgrad research and life-long fascination) so mayhap I have more of an idea of the limitations of the human grasp of the infinite than some! ;) It really is BIG out there, guys. :)

Clive
19-08-2009, 08:56
Next we can discuss Aleph Zero, Aleph One etc....:)

The Vinyl Adventure
19-08-2009, 12:14
“Descartes is sure that he has an idea of God, and that is an idea of an infinite thing. ..... Descartes claims that no finite creature, as he knows himself to be, could possibly have given rise to such an idea, the idea of an infinite being. It could have been implanted in him only by God himself:.”

Personally, I think that this is where the whole argument falls flat. 'Infinite' is merely a word - the actual concept of infinite is as beyond real human understanding as ever. As far as I am concerned, he has deluded himself into believing what he wanted to believe in the first place.

I speak as an astronomer by education (degree and 3 years postgrad research and life-long fascination) so mayhap I have more of an idea of the limitations of the human grasp of the infinite than some! ;) It really is BIG out there, guys. :)

that would apear to be a qoute from "think"

i guess he referd to underderstanding infinity as a concept in the same was as understanding god as concept.. you cant really do it .. and i think that in its self is part of his point


welcome back to your thread

The Vinyl Adventure
19-08-2009, 12:14
Next we can discuss Aleph Zero, Aleph One etc....:)

woz zat den?

Barry
19-08-2009, 14:01
to be fair when put that way, its a fairly good agument!
i quite like the idea of infinity being a makers mark, but surely that in its self could just be a product of the evil demon's trickery... im fairly certain that this argument against decarts god is know as a cartisian circle...

but yeah, i too am not sufficiantly educated to go much ferther than this... sorry dave

Like you, I though this was a weak point in his rationale. If the concept of an infinite God was the result of the 'mischievious demon', then the fact that the demon had created this idea, would make the demon itself infinite in its capabilities. So does this make the mischievous demon the same as God?

No, because to Descartes and to all other Christians in 17th century France, God is a benign and loving God, quite the opposite of the demon. It does seem however that Descartes was conveniently choosing those aspects of God which suited his argument.

I do however agree with both you and Jerry, that the concept of infinity or the infinite, does not imply that there has to exist some infinite entity in order to generate the concept.

I think that just about does it for me - sorry Dave; how about we talk about music and hi-fi, just by way of a change?

Regards

Barry
19-08-2009, 14:09
woz zat den?

Oh that's easy!

Start with:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/infinity.html

then:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Aleph-0.html
and links therein, finally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph-null.

At which point my head was about to explode!

Will have to remember the Aleph-Null drinking song; useful now we have all-day drinking.

Regards

The Vinyl Adventure
19-08-2009, 17:32
at the risk of flogging a dead horse ... this little clip from "politics" of ricky gervais talking to his pal karl pilkington is hysterical.. specifically the conversation they have about the nature of infinity (starts at 10mins 10 seconds)
enjoy!!

NQBlZIXu3Yg

DaveK
19-08-2009, 21:34
I think that just about does it for me - sorry Dave; how about we talk about music and hi-fi, just by way of a change?

Regards
Hi guys,
No probs - I was in way over my head anyway but I enjoy watching/listening to two or more experts (i.e. more expert than I am) discuss debate or demonstrate their specialisms no matter what it might be - sometimes I even pick up a few crumbs from the table.
I enjoyed what I read even though I couldn't grasp most of it - utmost respect to those that can.
Cheers.

Macca
19-08-2009, 22:48
Hi

Well I have , for what it's worth, a BA Hons in Philosophy so I feel sort of obliged to comment on this thread (it was 20 years ago though so cut me a little slack).

I would suggest that as you are possibly finding from discussing it at length the whole Descartian argument is a bit of a dead end ( although cogito ergo sum is a very natty soundbite).

For the truly interested I would check out some of the more esoteric phiolosophies that deal with the nature of reality, the self and perception but not in the dry, logical, western fashion. Some of the early Rosicruscian literature perhaps.

Regards

Martin

The Vinyl Adventure
19-08-2009, 23:14
... Ha, all this because I was trying to say that some peoples use if the word "fact" might be eroneous ... You gotta love this forum!

Barry
19-08-2009, 23:43
Hi

Well I have , for what it's worth, a BA Hons in Philosophy so I feel sort of obliged to comment on this thread (it was 20 years ago though so cut me a little slack).

I would suggest that as you are possibly finding from discussing it at length the whole Descartian argument is a bit of a dead end (although cogito ergo sum is a very natty soundbite).

For the truly interested I would check out some of the more esoteric phiolosophies that deal with the nature of reality, the self and perception but not in the dry, logical, western fashion. Some of the early Rosicruscian literature perhaps.

Regards

Martin

Hmm, looking at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucianism ,

I wonder what they have to say on cable directionality and 'Belt-ism'?

twelvebears
20-08-2009, 12:03
Personally I'm with Douglas Adams on this. Two particular quotes spring to mind:

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long walk down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

and the other:

The argument runs something like this. "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." "But", says Man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't. QED." "Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy", says Man, and for an encore he goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading thelogians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, "Well That About Wraps It Up For God."

Macca
20-08-2009, 19:39
Personally I'm with Douglas Adams on this. Two particular quotes spring to mind:

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long walk down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

and the other:

The argument runs something like this. "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." "But", says Man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore you don't. QED." "Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy", says Man, and for an encore he goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading thelogians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, "Well That About Wraps It Up For God."

Dead good!:)

jandl100
24-08-2009, 08:43
I prefer Terry Pratchett, who has a similar outlook on life.

And it seems that The Lord has little sense of humour, when you consider his response to these two individuals. :(

SteveW
29-09-2009, 21:37
The principles of modern philosophy were postulated by Descartes. Discarding everything he wasn't certain of He said 'I think therefore I am a rhubarb tart.' A rhubarb what? A rhubarb tart! A Rene who? Rene Descartes! Poor nut he thought he was a rhubarb tart!

SteveW
29-09-2009, 21:41
http://www.we7.com/#/track/The-Rhubarb-Tart-Song!trackId=58999