MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Saturday, April 19, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 34.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Nastiest forum "discussions"

Comments on the paper, the website, the mobile site and all other Isthmus-generated products go here.

Nastiest forum topics

Food fights in Eats
3
21%
Aural arguments in Music
4
29%
Political cat fights in Current Events
7
50%
 
Total votes : 14

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby TAsunder » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:23 am

Based on this thread, I will have to vote for music threads, because of the fact that the idiocy has now infested this otherwise reasonable thread.
TAsunder
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4781
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:21 pm
Location: Near East Side, Madison

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby Marvell » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:37 am

Frank Booth wrote:I wasn't around for The Knack, but people actually liked the "My Sharona" band? That blows my mind.


My favorite The Knack song isn't actually done by them; it's the cover of "Good Girls Don't" off of Chipmunk Punk.

Although I should point out that, while I don't normally approve of censorship, in this case I'm extemely grateful that they changed some of the lyrics for the Chipmunks version. I think I speak for myself, Sideshow Mel and Bumblebee Guy when I say that I really, really don't need to hear an anthropomorphic rodent singing about how someone is going to 'sit on his face.'
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6967
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby depinmad » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:44 pm

prude.
depinmad
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2062
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby ilikebeans » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:13 pm

TAsunder wrote:Based on this thread, I will have to vote for music threads, because of the fact that the idiocy has now infested this otherwise reasonable thread.

Bingo.
ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2753
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:35 pm

dave esmond wrote:If the farthest your ears have ever taken you is Supertramp then yeah the THs are gonna sound innovative. If you've heard actual African/world music not so much.

Y'know, I find this argument as silly as saying that a Mexican restaurant is no good for not being "authentic" enough. Well, I've had "genuine" Mexican cuisine and y'know what? I like the Americanized version better. Similarly, I've heard real African music and guess what? I'd rather listen to The Talking Heads.
The fact is, I find a lot of World Music completely inaccessible. Why? Because it's foreign -- it doesn't speak to me because I don't have the right vocabulary/cultural experiences to properly understand it. And although I consider myself as big a movie fan as a music fan, I generally have the same problem with foreign films; I feel culturally unequipped to actually understand them, which severely decreases my enjoyment. Note that I'm not claiming English-language art is superior in any way, I'm merely suggesting that it speaks to me directly in a way that foreign art cannot. Often, listening to world music or watching a foreign film just seems like homework.

Frank Booth wrote:I wasn't around for The Knack, but people actually liked the "My Sharona" band?

People did, sure -- it's difficult to place a single at #1 without somebody buying your records, after all -- but critics (notice how I made a distinction between people and critics) sure reviled them: I defy anyone to find a good review of a Knacks record from 1980. But then, as now, the kids (thankfully) mostly didn't listen to the critics -- just about everyone I knew liked The Knack, probably because of the juvenile lyrics and vaguely-familiar sound so detested by the critics. (Unfortunately for my argument, the critics got this one right -- The Knack can blow me. I'm in 100% agreement with Marvell's chipmunk-related assessment.)
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby blunt » Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:42 pm

If you can't handle the heat keep your lips off the crack pipe.

My write-in votes:
1) tedious discussions about evolution vs intelligent design.
2) arbitrary lists of crap to vote on according to a person's personal issues

And Frank Booth, watch it with that "people actually like?!" stuff.
Pro Wags cannnot deal with that kind of rhetoric.
Funny that someone usually as brilliant and wonderful as Professor would come running over here with his tail between his Wags just because he blew a gasket over in the General Music section.
Next time, wake me up before you Go- Go.
blunt
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8246
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 6:19 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby dave esmond » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:01 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:The fact is, I find a lot of World Music completely inaccessible. Why? Because it's foreign -- it doesn't speak to me because I don't have the right vocabulary/cultural experiences to properly understand it.

<snip>

Often, listening to world music or watching a foreign film just seems like homework.


Fair enough. I like listening to world music, so when I hear the Talking Heads trying to play a music they clearly enjoy but can't really play it just sounds bad to me. It sounds as halfass to my ears as Phish trying to play country. I get what they're trying to do but my ears say "swing and a miss" But I can see where you're coming from.



(Unfortunately for my argument, the critics got this one right -- The Knack can blow me. I'm in 100% agreement with Marvell's chipmunk-related assessment.)


Now you're just talking crazy. "Get the Knack" is a perfect album front to back. The others ones are quite good also.

Or whatever. I don't care who knows my love for the Knack. I'm runnin' over to Blunt's side of the playground.




Wait.

Blunt just said he digs Phil Collins. I'm comin' back over Prof. I must warn you tho' that The August Teens are gonna go all ninjaknack on your ass next time we play.
dave esmond
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby boston_jeff » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:17 pm

I realize that some of the TH/David Byrne oeuvre touches on world music, but did all of it? I don't know if you can generalize that to all TH's output. I certainly don't. The shit that sounds like bad worldbeat does suck.

The political forums are the worst IMO. Most trolls for sure, most hateful.
boston_jeff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2603
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:41 pm
Location: Near East

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:19 pm

dave esmond wrote: ...when I hear the Talking Heads trying to play a music they clearly enjoy but can't really play it just sounds bad to me.

Fair enough, but I would suggest that what the Heads did was synthesize some aspects of World Music with their own NY art-rock sensibility. If they wanted to play straight-up African music or real funk, they probably could have. That's just not what they were interested in doing.
But you like The Rolling Stones, right?
'Cuz y'know, they were just trying to play Chess blues, but couldn't really -- so does that mean they suck? Frankly, I've had a theory for years that many of the greatest bands were in some sense failures. The Beatles wanted to sound like Specialty soul and Motown girl group, but they surely didn't. What a spectacular failure though, right?

As for The Knack, well... they most definitely got hooks.
But that's it, and it's not enough to keep my interest.
But I wouldn't smash the turntable if you threw it on at a party or anything.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby dave esmond » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:36 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:Fair enough, but I would suggest that what the Heads did was synthesize some aspects of World Music with their own NY art-rock sensibility. If they wanted to play straight-up African music or real funk, they probably could have.


I tend to doubt it. You say synthesize, I say halfass. The art rock and funk too.

But it's most likely down to what we've heard too. I went to art school and I heard way too many bad art rock bands that sound just like the THs to me. Like most things where the word "art" is used with another medium it usually just equals sucky.

Performance art is usually just bad theatre. Video art is often just bad film making. And art rock is usually just bad rock.

But then again maybe I'm just unusually grumpy.

'Cuz y'know, they were just trying to play Chess blues, but couldn't really -- so does that mean they suck?


Nope. They managed to make it something interesting. To me they did synthesize their influences into something wonderful (for awhile). They certainly aren't that bad at playing the blues.

There's a difference to me between making something new out of your influences and making something that sounds like a mishmash of your influences without anything new.

But I really do have a whatever attitude. Somebody must like those Pat Boone albums with Little Richard covers even if I think they're quarterassed.
dave esmond
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:01 pm

dave esmond wrote: Like most things where the word "art" is used with another medium it usually just equals sucky.

I couldn't agree more, in general.
dave esmond wrote:
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:'Cuz y'know, they were just trying to play Chess blues, but couldn't really -- so does that mean they suck?


Nope. They managed to make it something interesting. To me they did synthesize their influences into something wonderful (for awhile). They certainly aren't that bad at playing the blues.

Obviously, I agree that The Stones rule.
My point was that their original goal was to sound like the blues -- and very specifically Chicago blues as recorded by Chess Records. But nobody who knows anything about Chess would ever confuse a Stones recording for an authentic Chess one. So although it's true that the Stones failed at what they set out to accomplish, their failure turned out to be much more interesting than any rote copy would have been (which is why once you've heard Freddy King, very early Clapton loses much of its appeal.)

dave esmond wrote:
There's a difference to me between making something new out of your influences and making something that sounds like a mishmash of your influences without anything new.

I would argue this is what The Stones and The Beatles went on to do, but only after they shed their original cover-band pretensions. The actual originality didn't come until after the influences had already been fully absorbed. I love the blues and Berry covers on the early Stones LPs, but I don't think anyone would argue that they're better than their original inspirations, let alone Beggar's Banquet.
Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8617
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby dave esmond » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:07 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:I love the blues and Berry covers on the early Stones LPs, but I don't think anyone would argue that they're better than their original inspirations, let alone Beggar's Banquet.


Heck I'll argue the first few Stones album flat out suck. Like Talking Heads bad. ;^)

Sometimes I wonder how they got to make more of 'em.
dave esmond
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 4:15 pm

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby Marvell » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:11 pm

dave esmond wrote:Heck I'll argue the first few Stones album flat out suck.

Sometimes I wonder how they got to make more of 'em.


Because Mick Jagger has what appears to be an armadillo in his trousers?

Also, something to do with Charlie Watts being God.
Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6967
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby boston_jeff » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:14 pm

Stones are bar none my favorite band. A lot of people can't understand that, but then again most have never actually listened to a Stones record (aside from Hot Rocks).

And they ripped genre after genre throughout their career, not just Chess and Chuck Berry. I could give 2 shits. They rule.
boston_jeff
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2603
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:41 pm
Location: Near East

Re: Nastiest forum "discussions"

Postby blunt » Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:19 pm

dave esmond wrote:
Prof. Wagstaff wrote:The fact is, I find a lot of World Music completely inaccessible. Why? Because it's foreign -- it doesn't speak to me because I don't have the right vocabulary/cultural experiences to properly understand it.

Or whatever. I don't care who knows my love for the Knack. I'm runnin' over to Blunt's side of the playground.
.


Finally you admit it: you're dumb.
That's why your tast runs low to the ground.
No wonder you have no idea how to evaluate XTC, Talking Heads and Go-Go's rationally.
I keep forgetting, your only project was a cartoon theme song cover band.
blunt
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 8246
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 6:19 pm
Location: Right behind you.

PreviousNext

Return to Comments on Isthmus & TheDailyPage.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar