Being overly precious/protective of bands : C/D?

Even more of a dud are people who are protective/precious about bands only because he or she "discovered them first", which really is sub-elementary school at best.

Being overly precious/protective of Melody: C/D?

So very DUD. Those occasions when people insist that X should obviously have been much higher than Y in a poll are, personally, among my least favourite ILM moments (even though a poll might be taken as empirical evidence of a slipping reputation).

how about this: a few years back there the chemical brothers toured with meat beat manifesto as an opening act, which i declared a travesty as the chems simply wouldn't exist without 'radio babylon'. in a just world, it would be the other way round. is that being 'overly precious'?

I think this kind of hyperbole is normal among music geeks, and I wouldn't let it get my little donuts in a twist.

What ARE you talking about, donut? :) ...For me it's an aesthetic thing -- as in a sort of weird primal revulsion, I'm sure there's much psychoanalytic hay to be made if you like -- plus an excuse to huff and puff about music I like being better than music I don't like that is better known and makes more $ than the stuff I like, which moreover it may or may not be derivative of to some degree. Of course it's often the way of the world, but I don't have to enjoy it. In practical terms, I don't buy or much want to hear some releases, end of story. Sorry if I was bugging you with my zeal elsewhere; there was a bit of humor to it that may not have come through.

Also, at forty-one years old my tastes have, regrettably but perhaps inevitably, calcified somewhat, though I hope not TOTALLY. Being mindful of this and trying not to be too much of a fucking curmudgeon about it, EXCEPT IN THOSE RARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE MY SENSIBILITIES ARE TRULY MORTALLY OFFENDED, is about the best I can do.

Utter classic.

OK, that's not entirely fair. I wildly reject the idea of calling musicians "Sell-outs", given the fact that music is, after all, their job...however, there isn't that much difference between the indignation I get from hearing an inferior cover/remake of a song I like, and seeing a clumsy film version of a good book. If it's alright to bitch about the awkward manhandling of a book, why is it inherently wrong to object to a bad cover or an ill-advised sample?

Of course, I don't consider such judgements to be an indictment of the original music, but rather the understandably fallible human beings that control the licensing of the music and might be tempted to, say, make a house payment or pay back their debt for the recording of said album. Still, I don't feel required to withhold my distaste for the decisions made...I just don't feel that objecting to questionable current business decisions implies some sort of rejection of the music that has come before.

It might be helpful to link this thread to the Go4 thread that spawned it...I would do it myself, but I am stoopid with the technology and would probably crash your computers or something with my dumbness.

Actually, I didn't start this thread only because of the Go4 remix thingie thread.. this has been building for a while, as long as six months actually.. just noticing patterns in what people say here and there... and also what I say as well.

Surely, a vast majority of it is hyperbole.. agreed. I don't think many people would be truly offended and say the above quotes about {X} and completely mean it.

I'm just curious to explore how/why the hyperbole gets triggered.

I'm guilty as any here who has posted, most likely, by the way.

I ultimately want to break myself free from this type of hyperbole, as it is just useless anxiety, and it kinda fogs up my judgement and thinking about music, over all. I just don't see it as very constructive... the hyperbole that is, not the criticism. Criticism is very important, of course.

being annoyed at ILM geeks (not donut) ragging people who you know on a PERSONAL level regardless of the music they make = well, not classic per se, but understandable

being a twat who thinks your favorite band can do no wrong = dud, obviously

Donut, I think your analogy to friendship in the original post is completely OTM. I think that it is natural for most of us, as music obsessives, to feel some sort of personal connection to what we listen to, particularly if we have spent hours defending the indefensible, as it were, with the bands in question. As a result, just like the moments where given friend runs up your phone bill or sells your irreplaceable OOP CDs to buy smack (sorry, recent bitterness of a personal nature. Pay no attention), you are stuck between your desire to once again defend their worth, or throw your hands up and say "Goddamit. Stop giving people reasons to tell me why I was wrong all this time."

So, yeah, my spitting vitriolic reaction to bands violating what I think they should do annoys the shit out of me, because I know that it doesn't change the fact that tomorrow I will be more than willing to defend the same bands to the death. ILM just lets me vent without the inherent danger of convincing someone not to pay attention to their own tastes, I guess.

As an aside, the reissue of "Entertainment!" is good enough that Andy Gill can come over to my house and steal anything he wants if it means the next few albums will be given the same treatment...

you're gay

in a non-homo way, just in a god-dammit-are-you-still-giving-two-shits-about-gang-of-four-give-it-up-old-man kinda way

Usually I think it's going overboard with the "music-as-extension-of-yourself" thing. The band comes to represent a certain aspect of your personality, if not you. When band gets attacked or threatened you feel as if you are threatened.

A good example of this thinking gone extreme is when you love an indie band for being good and obscure and then when they get a wider fanbase of people who you normally don't associate yourself with you feel as if you're own specialness is being whored out. Your love for the band may fade for illegitimate reasons not having to do with the music. The Arcade Fire's rise and potential backlash is like that.

But I've been guilty of dumb little attitudes like that in the past. :(

multixpost to donut

Yeah, needless to say people do tend at times to talk and write (ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS) about music in ways that become much more about themselves than about the music, by way of self-definition and -assertion, social connection / stratification, etc., etc., etc. It probably can't be eliminated altogether on a message board like this, nor would anyone want it to be (I think), but even though it has its place, making an effort to recognize and question the tendency to do so *unthinkingly* is totally valid, especially should you want to think about and discuss *music itself* (whatever that actually means, I'm not entirely sure) as a primary object of inquiry, bizarre a notion as that might be. I myself am just an obsessive person who doesn't always have the most precise control over the use of sarcasm in text. Cheers. P.S. Please kill me now before I hear any remixes that I just know will ruin my life and probably destroy civilization as we know it. kthxbye.

you're gay
-- hstencil (hstenc!...), May 25th, 2005.

in a non-homo way, just in a god-dammit-are-you-still-giving-two-shits-about-gang-of-four-give-it-up-old-man kinda way
-- hstencil (hstenc!...), May 25th, 2005.

Don't you have something better to do with your time? Like, say, shut the fuck up?

Just a suggestion...

nope

All right. I respect that...

I think it's pointless being over protective of yer favourite bands, yes, but otoh, it is kind of annoying seeng some other band/musician ostentatiously "referencing" some other rekkid is whatever way b/c:

1/it's always something "cool" in some way, never anything remotely, i dunno, "different". There always seems to be this kind of self-concious desperation about it, like the act doing the referencing has some kind of hope that some of that "coolness" will rub off on them.

2/ I can't think of an instance where the referencer improved on the referencee in any way whatsoever, I mean i'm sure people have, I just can't think of an isntance.

3/there's always the possibility of seeing someone get all the credit/kudos/ca$h for something that somebody else though of.

So I guess it's sorta dud, but I suppose it's an understandable response, sometimes. Like a 23 skidoo fan getting mightily pissed off when they heard that chem bros rekkid, and watched it sell shitloads, I mean I could understand & sympathise w/that.

I'm entirely guilty of this re: _______ ____, but JE REGRET RIEN!

If it's done robustly, with a sense of humour and without the individual responsible actually taking themself too seriously; no matter how strongly they may feel about the band in question (cf. the very fine example set by that charming gentleman from NYC wrt Killing Joke); an absolute, total, complete and utter CLASSIC.

This is precisely the sort of approach that's needed to keep the discussions here lively; to create an atmosphere that actively encourages people to express their own views (even if they do happen to be different from other peoples') thereby encouraging other people with a range of different views to come here; and generally keeping this board an interesting and a fun place to come, rather than it becoming just another bunch of sad tossers who agree with each other about pretty much everything pretty much all of the time.

There are more than enough lists and boards dedicated to and populated by people who all love one specific band or type of music out there already.

If the individul responsible just gets sulky and whiny and petulant when his or her favourites are subjected to the slightest whiff of criticm however: a big, fat, resounding DUD.