Are mods and members allowed to say anything to each other?

I'm such a dumbass.
Watch, people will agree.

Mare always calls me a retard. But deep down he loves me as much as i love him.

[quote="Camio"][quote="Marekenshin"]ITT camio is a fucking retard, as usual, and make sweeping generalizations without any factual support.

How am I not surprised?[/quote]

are you seriously saying that you can PROVE that Music A is BETTER than Music B? Because that's the core argument of this thread. I didnt think you were THAT stupid that you would think that you can prove an opinion. Where's your factual support?[/quote]

No, you CAN'T prove that Music A is better than Music B, but you can objectively observe how good Artist A's performance was over Artist B's. THAT is what the core argument of this thread has been about.

[quote="Marekenshin"]

No, you CAN'T prove that Music A is better than Music B, but you can objectively observe how good Artist A's performance was over Artist B's. [/quote]

thats not contradictory at all.

would you mind proving to me why certain standards for performances are objectively significant and indicate quality?

He can't, because they're founded in his own personal taste, which you don't agree with. Also, he's right about what he said, because you can't prove anything with conflicting opinions.

Musical opinions, like all opinions, are the result of an individual's interpretation of the music. There is such thing as greater validity or significance, but at the same time, an opinion cannot be proven true, no matter how much background is behind it. A person may have more advanced taste or a stronger opinion because they actually play music, for example. This might lend validity to the opinion, but in the end, it still can't be proved because it is still completely objective. Also, there will always be people(such as yourself) who disagree with the opinion, no matter what. That is also objective. Unless we get some sort of magic musicometer that provides our interpretations for us, the quality of a certain type of music can never be proven.

Wow, congratulations on pretty much repeating what everyone just said. Fact of the matter is there are bands that can't play their music live as well as the next band. That in itself can determine the quality of a band.

[quote="Camio"]

thats not contradictory at all.

would you mind proving to me why certain standards for performances are objectively significant and indicate quality?[/quote]

....it's not contradictory, moron.
A terrible performance of good music makes the music sound terrible.
If you're in culinary school, even if a dish you made tastes good, it means nothing if it looks like a pile of garbage.
This is how the world works, presentation is pretty much 99% of everything, it's as simple as anyone can put it. How big of a hole do you plan on digging yourself in? It's just fucking sad. seriously.

Sorry, but people just didn't seem to get it, despite the repetition. I thought maybe that would help.

[quote="skoolyardpunk"]Wow, congratulations on pretty much repeating what everyone just said. Fact of the matter is there are bands that can't play their music live as well as the next band. That in itself can determine the quality of a band.

[quote="Camio"]

thats not contradictory at all.

would you mind proving to me why certain standards for performances are objectively significant and indicate quality?[/quote]

....it's not contradictory, moron.
A terrible performance of good music makes the music sound terrible.
If you're in culinary school, even if a dish you made tastes good, it means nothing if it looks like a pile of garbage.
This is how the world works, presentation is pretty much 99% of everything, it's as simple as anyone can put it. How big of a hole do you plan on digging yourself in? It's just fucking sad. seriously.[/quote]

i'm the one digging a hole?

you're the one saying that yes everyone has different tastes but certain people's opinions are more correct than others.
which actually means, you agree with certain people's opinions and that makes them correct to you.

I'm sorry but anyone can go up on stage and play the music they made and add enough "theatrics" to keep people interested. Not anyone can go up in front of a nation and go crazy, create harsh opinions on both sides of his performance and be talked about for a long time, while playing his song.

what declares that opinion less correct then anyone else's?

maybe mass agreement on underlying principles of musical quality.

those underlying principles are also subjective

so it's really just mass agreement.

which is not objective either.

so AGAIN in conclusion.A performance quality is just like musical taste. infinitly subjective. Voice your opinion, hear the other side. But understand that you cant/shouldnt act like you're more correct , but rather just ensure your opinion is clearly understood and then let them do with it as they will.

maybe if people could learn to accept that all opinions are equal we wouldnt have these witch hunts.

So you believe that a good MUSICAL performance has nothing to do with how accurately the music is played, as long as there are some hardcore fans that enjoy it?

In other words, it doesn't matter if the parts are in tune, played at the right timing, or even done accurately, so long as there is at least one retard in the crowd that likes it that way...gotcha.

There are, in fact, objective measures as to what defines a great live band:

For instance, DigitalDreamDoor.com uses the following criteria:

"Based upon reputation within music circles at their peak and their consistency at maintaining that high performance level over time, the impact of their live performances on their career and influence on the evolution of live shows."

What it all boils down to is the ability to entertain without sacrificing musical performance. You know, that thing we've been been trying to explain to you for the past five pages. Of course, then there is impact on other musicians, of which the Vines have none.

"Some people think it's great, therefore it is great," is a weak-assed argument, especially when "some people"="Camio."=/="everyone else."

[quote="Retarded Hamster"]I'm sorry but anyone can go up on stage and play the music they made and add enough "theatrics" to keep people interested. Not anyone can go up in front of a nation and go crazy, create harsh opinions on both sides of his performance and be talked about for a long time, while playing his song.[/quote]

First of all, your latter statement is completely incorrect, especially the bit about "while playing his song." Anyone can do that, and I mean [i]anyone[/i]. Everyone simply refuses to, much like most lawyers refuse to engage in a strip-tease during their closing statements.

Second of all, if it were that easy to be a good live band, as you suggest in your former statement...never mind, you're just an idiot. It goes without saying, and if I have to explain it further, you're far worse than an idiot.

congratulations sheer, you achieved not bringing nothing new but another opinion that agrees with you.

btw I'm not alone in my opinion just on these boards apparently. pirouzu =/= everyone (far from it, I have never met anyone as rigidly fundamentalist with music as some people on im.)

I'm confident about my stance because a year ago I would have agreed with you guys. And then I learned better.

to your credit your opinion is perfectly rational and makes sense in theory.

its just not true. Maybe you live in some strange world where a crowd of people rocking out go deadpan and stop in their tracks if the singer is off key or knocked his guitar out of tune on a jump, but this isnt how things have gone at the shows I've been too.

most people go to a show to have fun and rock out. As long as there's alot of energy in the air and the music is rolling. Who cares if it's studio quality? If the band gets so wild that parts of the song sound completly different. even better!

Sorry, I was referring to everyone who enjoys music and has some sense of it. Forgive me for misrepresenting my statement. You will also notice that most people who play instruments (with any degree of seriousness or ability) will not tolerate a sloppy performance - perhaps it is simply different with laypeople who have less of an understanding of music.

And for future reference, whenever someone says, "I used to ... before I saw the light," it offers no credibility at all, and only makes the speaker look retarded. I'm not judging you, that's just how it is.

[quote="Camio"]cits just not true. Maybe you live in some strange world where a crowd of people rocking out go deadpan and stop in their tracks if the singer is [b]off key or knocked his guitar out of tune on a jump[/b], but this isnt how things have gone at the shows I've been too.

most people go to a show to have fun and [b]rock out[/b]. As long as there's alot of [b]energy in the air[/b] and the music is rolling. Who cares if it's studio quality? If the band gets so wild that parts of the song sound completly different. even better![/quote]

1) No, Rock shows aren't all about getting every note perfect. I mean, it's a bit nicer when a band can play their own material well, but live, people are willing to make a few exceptions. But this was more than an exception - this was pushed to an extreme that's generally unlistenable to the ears of [the vast majority of people besides Camio]

2) True, people go to rock shows because "rocking out" is fun. But as I stated before, THIS WAS FUCKING LETTERMAN. Not some divey bar with a bunch of hardcore fans. This was Letterman. The studio audience was sitting down in their seats, far away from the band. I can guarantee you no one was rocking out at that performance. Usually when bands play on Letterman, they play closely to how their studio recording sounded. It's a chance to show the world what your band really sounds like so they pick up the album. I'm sure The Vines made nearly everyone go "WTF IS THIS SHIT" rather than pique interest.

Radically different =/= automatically good.

I'm requesting a "Fuck this Shit" from Jomei at this point... I see no end in sight.