DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Interact: if losers had a website...

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > The General Forum: Interact

if losers had a website...

AdamsGod	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 5:48 PM ok, so theres this site called www.redfizz.com www.redfizz.com
K3VIN	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 7:15 PM maybe u suck joking id never be that much of a jerk, probably envy simon cowell
K3VIN	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 7:16 PM they *
AdamsGod	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 9:24 PM i dont mind hearing that i suck, trust me my ego is super huge.. i just like knowing why someone didnt like something i worked on, instead of just telling me it sucks, without a real reason as to why.
Distilled1	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 9:48 PM Adam I checked it out, ya that looks mighty bad anyone can be the critic and say you suck, hell if they don't like the flavor there gona say that seems theres more rap and ?pop/alternitive? there. Your great and BTW your on Goth Nights podcast Independent Industrial Revolution Avalib;e now at gothnights.com and all the usual
thesoloer	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 9:57 PM I dont know Adam I'll have to look at that later on when I have the chance. I am afraid to put up my music here, because I am always afraid. If people are like going to at me or they are going to shutter in , then there is no point to putting music up. I just want an honest opinion, THAT'S ALL. I really want to see a site which you'd get good and honest critiques for music. I like Dmusic for that sole reason. You know what I mean? That type of music they have may not be the right fit for me.
ChillinBuzz	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 11:19 PM maybe Simon Cowell created the site
AgentMGD	Date: July 4, 2006 @ 11:57 PM "that was bloody awful" - Simon Cowell
Fraser	Date: July 5, 2006 @ 12:44 AM Nah, if I put my music up there, everyone would die of too many orgasms in a row. My music is just that damn good
K3VIN	Date: July 5, 2006 @ 12:47 AM i want multiple orgasms
leedsquietman	Date: July 5, 2006 @ 11:32 AM 'you sound like a waiter in a bad Portuguese restaurant who was singing to clear out the stragglers at closing time' Simon Cowell
ElectrikFlame	Date: July 24, 2006 @ 10:11 PM Ohh Man that's bullshit how they do that. I agree with Simon Cowell Being the soul of that industry. Don't let em get cha down. It's just a bunch of people putting others down on their tunes even though they can't play a note.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 7:31 AM I'm quite tempted to join that site just to see how they'd rip into me. I'm sure I'd get lots of comments like: "needs more instruments to keep it interesting" and "could have been recorded better" and "you suck, asshole!" Is it easy to take your songs off of there when you've had enough?
kingo	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 8:07 AM 1. Yes, I think they let you delete songs easily enough. 2. It's fun giving them songs to say, "wtf?" about.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 8:10 AM Ha! I might have to do that, then. I wonder what they'd say about 'One Chord Wanker' or 'Stuck Up the Slide'
Israfel	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 8:31 AM 'Stuck Up the Slide' is one of my all time favorites! It just makes me happy everytime I listen to it!
SimonWaldram	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 8:47 AM Thank you! It was certainly the most fun I've ever had recording a song
SimonWaldram	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 5:11 PM I've just submitted 'The Archerfish' to them. They'll probably rip it apart, but never mind.
hueseph	Date: July 25, 2006 @ 9:02 PM People come down on Simon Cowell. I personally like him. Isn't there enough crap on the airwaves? It's a good thing there's someone out there trying to filter through all of that to get to the real cream of the crop. Seriously though, people may hate Christina Aguilera and B Spears but the truth is that they have some serious vocal chops. Sure I hate their belly aching, sugary sweet ballads but they can belt it in tune every time. Some of the crap that passes for singing on American Idol is just pathetic. I'm glad Simon is there to tell the truth. Now if you want an honest opinion AdamsGod: listen to your stuff with an honest and open mind and ask yourself "Would I pay to listen to this?". Maybe you would. In all honesty, I couldn't. I just find the sonwriting to be a bit lacking. That's just my personal opinion. Better that you hear an honest opinion than have someon bloat your ego so that someone else can come along to pop that bubble. If you think that Simon Cowell is a rarety, you're in for a big surprise. I think that you'll find most A&R reps are as critical or worse. If you think that anyone in the industry is going to listen to anything that is less than mind blowing both in audio quality as well as musically, you're in for a rude awakening when you send your cd to the label only to find out they filed it under T for trash.
leedsquietman	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 6:13 AM Probably true on most scores here, especially the A&R people. Not sure about Brittney, I always felt she was a beneficiary of Antares autotuning but as I haven't seen her live, I couldn't comment but agree Aguilera can sing even if the material she represents is typical fluffy sugar pop handed on a plate by the record company. However, musical taste is a subjective thing and I happen to enjoy AdamsGod and hueseph - this may not be very constructive, but it is my truth...
kingo	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 8:15 AM Indeed. Hueseph seems to ignore that fact in his occasional rants (which, by the way, I think we need more of.) " id="236768">"...musical taste is a subjective thing..." Indeed. Hueseph seems to ignore that fact in his occasional rants (which, by the way, I think we need more of.)
zedsalt	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 11:35 AM There is such an infinitesimally small portion of what can be called music that I simply CANNOT bear, and Mr. Cowell seems to be pretty good at identifying it. The fact that he enjoys...or at least, sees the great commercial potential in...that tiny portion doesn't make him any less useful.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 12:26 PM Hueseph, you said about Simon Cowell that: "It's a good thing there's someone out there trying to filter through all of that to get to the real cream of the crop." The thing is, though, when you see him and the rest of the panel judging the auditions you have to remember that everyone they show on TV has already been through one audition with them. They get tons and tons of people who are just mediocre but you don't usually see them as they get filtered out. What you do see are the ones who are "good" enough to pass, and the really awful ones for all the smug people watching to laugh at. In other words, it's not even his job to reject the bad ones; it's merely his job to be horribly and unnecessarily cruel to them for other people’s amusement.
Rikki27	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 12:39 PM lol that is EXACTLY what people do in ultimater-guitar forums. if u arent friends with anyone there, they completely rip ur song apart without so much as a "Well u could improve here...." its more like "that was bloody terrible, im gonna spread word around that 1.u cant play guitar 2.u cant sing and 3. ucant write songs"
SimonWaldram	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 1:05 PM I think a lot of people on redfizz.com just enjoy the power (so to speak) of being armchair critics. I've seen some really good songs ripped apart on there for the pettiest of reasons. Particularly interesting to me are the (usually one word) reasons the panel gives for rejecting songs, including: "Square" "Yawn" "Useless" "Hookless" "Tepid" "Eh" "Mupperty" "Annoying" "Demented" "Not Classist Enough" "Prosaic" And so on. Pretty blunt ways to dismiss someones art, especially as a lot of them deserve better treatment. It's also interesting to me to note the disparity of opinions between DM users and Redfizz users on AdamsGod's music. One of his songs got absolutely torn to pieces on Redfizz, but praised to the high heavens on DM ("classic", "awesome", "fantastic"). It makes me think that not only are many Redfizz users way too harsh in their comments, but a lot DMers pour forth gushing praise way too easily (I thought the song, which I won’t name, was just okay - for the record). It's an old topic, I know, but stepping into the waters of a similar kind of website has really brought it home to me. God knows what the folks at Redfizz will make of 'The Archerfish'. I'm not expecting much praise, that’s for sure, but I just wanted to see the difference in opinions between here and there. Maybe it will be a bit of an eye opener.
leedsquietman	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 4:21 PM Also, most of the people writing the bitter and harsh comments are noticable absent when it comes to posting their own music, that's if they are even musicians. (I viewed the redfizz site ans saw precious little objectivity and plenty of cheap insults) It's sooooo cool to hide behind a semi-anonymous identity and become someone else these days on the net - objective criticism is one thing but hateful bile coming from someone who misguidedly thinks they are 'smart' and 'superior' and 'hip' posting this junk is something else - I mean, A & R men kind of have a right as their careers live or die on their decisions and recommendations but some nut wannabe Simon Cowell commenting on music when they probably can't sing a note in tune and wouldn't know whether a guitar is a musical instrument or something to hang a hat on dissing people is something else...
hueseph	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 10:26 PM "it's not even his job to reject the bad ones" - actually before he ever did AI, he was an A & R guy. So yeah in a way it is his job to filter out the bad ones. "It's also interesting to me to note the disparity of opinions between DM users and Redfizz users on AdamsGod's music. One of his songs got absolutely torn to pieces on Redfizz, but praised to the high heavens on DM ("classic", "awesome", "fantastic")."- I find this interesting too. The fact is, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, that Dmusic is a touchy feely group who would rather bolster the ego of mediocre musicians than hurt their feelings with the truth. Yes, music is subjective in a superficial way. There are aspects though that undeniably define what is good and what is bad. I'm not talking about I like this or hate that. There is something difficult to pinpoint that which artistry was once measured. There was a time when standards were high and musicianship was one aspect of that definition. Why do people still listen to Zeppelin and Sabbath? Why are there groups that stand the test of time while others fall into obscurity? Is it a superficial quality that we all agree upon? Maybe. I think that there is definitely something that we all strive to achieve that few people actually have the ability to attain to. Many come close and may even gain some level of fame. The majority however will inevitably get filed into the archives. I understand that there are some uncalled for, maybe heartless comments at redfizz. Take the good with the bad. That is the industry and the industry is fickle. People are fickle. Those are the risks we take for wanting to express ourselves. Again, it's only my opinion. Don't take it personally.
Woof	Date: July 26, 2006 @ 10:36 PM The Redfizz model is good, in theory. Somebody uploads a song that even the jerkiest critic can't find fault with, and it gets featured. Let's assume, in a perfect world, it worked exactly like that. The resulting "winners" would remind me of what a very wise man once told me: "Good is not the absence of bad". And I know I've just contradicted myself, but that's okay 'cause I'm thinking out loud. This, however, is the www, not some TV series with some vague governance of standards and practices. Therefore, in the real world, the Redfizz model doesn't hold up very well, 'cause there are no criteria set up to qualify the critics. Therefore, the site can simply degenerate into an excuse to practice trollism. If DM had a troll invasion, and we were to wake up one morning to find crappy, insulting comments posted for all of our songs by a number of new and relatively anonymous users, would those comments be the result of abuse, or "honest"? It's a good an fair question I'm asking there. Because sometimes really insulting remarks do contain grains of truth. So you tell me...
TameasDust	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 1:34 AM
theblacklodge	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 5:21 AM Huseph, you basically argue that there is an essential quality "there" in some music, that consequently people with good taste (like Simon Cowel) recognize as good. In other words people who have leaped into experiencing the 'true source of quality' in the music. You accepted that indeed, people can "like" or "dislike" various things, but you're talking about something else, a kind of essential quality in the music (music, defined in the broadest sense) that stands out objectively, and is not, as Kingo claimed, subjective/relative. I could say that in consequence you claim there is only one 'truely good' way of doing things musically, only one kind of way to jangle that guitar in a certain song, only one way to shred over a certain background, only one production for each arrangement. You could interject and say: no, there are of course more ways than one to do "good" quality music! I mean there are a lot of different "surviving" bands (even in the same genres) out there so it would seem crazy to say that one way to do it is the only right way. But.. How many ways, how many choices in playing that guitar, how to sing and so on, are there then? There has to be a limit of choices before it becomes, in your reasoning, a "bad" choice, otherwise there would be endless choices and they would all be good (or bad if you woke up on that side)! Then your world with the good, successful giants would seem like one ugly facade. And what happens when very popular ways of doing things just die out?? Progressive rock was literally overcome by punk and other acts in the late 70's and even if the bands from that era reappeared the most popular ones had changed or even changed a lot musically (take Genesis). Is your argument for why progressive rock lost so much of its popularity, not only that the public shifted but also because they just weren't good enough before? You seem to be fine with arguing that popularity, when you bring up Sabbath and Zeppelin, is somehow evidence of that there is that 'essintal quality' in some music and not in other. And saying that the reason that the music from the surviors you mentioned has lived on, is because it's good in an essential way because people like it, I find, is not really an explanaition. It's more like looking at things as how they appear, and saying "people find it good" therefore it is essentially 'good'. Like the old Greek guys who just 'observed' things as they appeared, and concluded that the "origin substance" of everything was water for one, fire for another and so on. My point is that your argument against why taste is a relative concept, falls short because you simply state that the essential quality is there in some music just because people happen to like that music. That does not in any way disprove the idea of taste as relative. Oh yes oh yes, people listen for this, that and more in music to decide if things fall under what they categorize in a conveniently simplified way as good or bad (production, the lead vocals, the guitarsolo, songstructure, younameit), but there's quite a difference between accepting that they do that, or saying that they don't only do that but also agree on seeing some things as 'good'/'bad' in a certain genre because they have found what real, essential 'good' music is for that genre. And yes, we can go into songs and break things down in whatever categories we want to: song structure, a chord sequence here, an effect there, and saying that if we changed this or that, it would possibly do something that we recognized as 'good'/'better' 'worse' or whatever. It doesn't mean we created that standard for ourselves just because we were merely translating the 'pure quality' in music into good and bad. Back in the days of predominaiting calssical music there were different, more strict formulas, but the fact that those formulas existed does, again not disprove the concept of taste as relative, it doesn't give evidence to that Mozart's music was objectively 'better' than Salleri's, just cause his pieces are/were more popular. Why call the act of agreeing (without the guidance of a 'true' quality) that something falls under "good" or "bad" taste as "superficial"? When you're eating out with your friends and having a good time that could be analysed as a social ritual where all of you get good energy together and possibly get closer. It's not an act where the positive results are there because the 'true essential qualities, equal for everyone everywhere' in having a good time together were followed. It's just a social ritual that you create together (see the difference?) in any way that want to (culturally, not objectively constructed), possibly with some nice results. Now, would you call that "superficial"? I hope I've not come off as a prick in arguing so sternly against your point, but trying to convince myself that there is possibly no arguing against Simon Cowell's opinion, because he knows 'true quality' (since the music that is played on the radios is the most popular=best) would be as impossible as saying there is no arguing against a President since he got most of the votes. Think about it, he's the most popular one and therefore the values he bases his politics on must, objectively be the best!
Rikki27	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 10:23 AM wow that was quite a post
Israfel	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 10:46 AM but very well said!
zedsalt	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 11:07 AM One thing is for certain- if Sabbath or Zeppelin had never "happened" and were trying out for any of these contest-type shows, they'd NEVER make it past their hometowns.
theblacklodge	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 2:31 PM That sounds possible Zed (especially in the case of Sabbath who weren't exactly falling into the usual categories in their playing), and I am quite sure that Britney Spears, as a singer would never have made it through American Idol. Actually I think it's not unlike walking inside that "bubble" to keep having to tell yourself that artists who you constantly hear on the radio, see on TV, are there just because they make music that is "mindblowing" in every aspect..
leedsquietman	Date: July 27, 2006 @ 4:22 PM Led Zep did have a better chance than most, given that Jimmy Page had made a lot of connections (including top A&R men and record company owners, directors) as a prolific session player and a stint in a band with commercial success (The Yardbirds, also home to Eric Clapton and Jeff Beck at different times) plus he financed the first album himself using top producers of the day (Glyn Johns etc), so any prospective record company picking up Led Zep didn't have to worry about paying for the album if it was a flop. Given he had an established reputation and that he already had a finished album to present was a pretty good incentive for Atlantic to sign them up...
SimonWaldram	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 1:11 AM I know the discussion has moved on a little, but I just want to bring it back to Redfizz for a moment: They rejected 'The Archerfish' - unsuprisingly enough, apparently because the judge "Just didn't dig". Here are the helpful comments I've got so far: "it's a little open mike-y. needs to go to the next level of production. maybe change up the guitar to add a little more dimension. and pass the shrooms, dude." "dude: archerfish is a the#@&%!utic yoga position that helps with horrible headaches. some say, with regular practice, it can actually reinvigorate lost brain cells from indulgent mescaline or mushroom abuse. seriously." "the picture for this song is really really bad. I have no idea what an archerfish is, point and laugh at the retard. This sounds like a "theme" based song, gone horribly wrong. The strum pattern is really really generic, and the cadence of the verses seems a bit to forced. It just doesn't have a flow or anything to it, i think "forced" would have been my reason for rejection. Either that or "Default pic"" That's right, folks, I must be on mushrooms to write a song about a fish. Woo! I'm so crazy! The picture the guy is going on about is just the band picture you have to upload (I used a drawing made by a kid of a girl with a headache). Why that has to be judged in conjunction with the song I have absolutely no idea. Also the comment "needs to go to the next level of production": Why? Why does it? Who am I, Britney Spears?? No, I'm a indie-folk type guy, dammit! Production my arse!
SimonWaldram	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 1:11 AM http://redfizz.com/rf/song.aspx?&songid=342530
Saint	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 1:23 AM I posted "something inside"...It got rejected because someone "yawned" while listening..my comments thus far: 1.Dig the groove out of the gate! hits you in the face! Then it gets a bit weak. needs to rock out a bit more and yeah vocals seem to be candy punk mixed with some bee bop. Keep rockin though my man! 2.this voice sounds like too nice a guy to be making bad ass music 3.it seems a little marchy. i'll admit i'm not very familiar with hardgothrock. maybe that staccato feel is a prevalent device. there are some interesting elements in there. i'll let those that are more familiar with this genre make the votes. 4.whoa! hardrock/goth rock and instrumental new age at the same time? you could give a workshop on compartmentalism.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 7:09 AM "This sounds like a "theme" based song, gone horribly wrong. The strum pattern is really really generic, and the cadence of the verses seems a bit to forced. It just doesn't have a flow or anything to it, i think "forced" would have been my reason for rejection." Agghhh! This comment has pissed me off so damn much
DeadraveN	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 11:41 AM I've started posting on redfizz as well, but here's what I've realized.. A) the stuff in the "featured area" is mostly crap, and even the people on redfizz seem to acknowledge that. the place to find good music there is in the "reject" area. B) yeah, most of the comments are negative, and posteed by people who are underqualified at best, but there are still those bits of helpful criticism from objective listeners to be found within the pile of crap. 73)If we really wanted to have an effect there, the bst way to be for us all to listen to some music there, and give honest insightful comments, helpful criticism when we can, and praise when it's deserved. Obviously, blatant ass kissery will be, well, obvious, but c'mon.. we're from Dmusic for christsake, we know how to write a decent comment on a song! and last and probably least.. 24) If nothing else, it's at least mildly amusing, so long as you're ego isn't tied to getting your ass kissed. just my twelve cents...
SimonWaldram	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 12:24 PM All good points. There are some useful comments on there, I know, and not everyone just likes to poke holes, I know. My ego isn't tied to getting my ass kissed...at least I don't think it is I put a song on there because I wanted different opinions from different people...which is what I got. I'm going to put some more songs on there and they'll probably get a similar negative reaction, but I still want to see what those wacky Redfizzers will write about them. You're right about us going over there to comment. If someone on there has a decent song that's being unfairly ripped apart, for example, we could perhaps be there to offer more objective and postive opinions.
theblacklodge	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 5:19 PM I bet some of the typical "one word" reviewers aren't exactly serious, but I just get so tired when I hint that some of the 'reviewers' seem to honestly believe their wankings in shocked and appauled interjections, should be desired in the name of 'truth' or whatever they call it. Resulting in unconstructive, dismissive blabber under the false label of being "honest and constructive truth saying". Don't we all, at first love to read the cynical, very trendsensitive music magazine critic who slays artist after artist in the same sarcastic way as a lot of people on that site? I thought it was hysterical to read things like that, and it still can be a nice kind of 'entertainment' in a way. To me it's just sad to see people who have stopped at the "trendy and cynical magazine critic"-stage, and believe that rants about how terribly wrong, lousy things are in a song, actually make up an "honest, constructive review". Putting out dismissive opinions in a way that is designed to be entertainment, and saluting themselves as "truthsayers". I know that I have made reviews that have been going on and on about verious things that I would have liked differently, but I try my best to give as specific reasons as I can when I go on a rant, and try to keep it away from being a showoff of my 'image', where the purpouse is to show everybody how 'funny', 'cool' or 'in' I could be. "the line about how you miss your girlfriend is too gay" or "the lousy way you did this, brings it all down to a hole of nothing, dude", are opinions, but that's all.
Israfel	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 5:37 PM I agree. It's perfectly acceptible to state what you like or don't like in a song but when the comments or commentors seek to simply write something "clever" that virtually kills any creative interaction...I just don't see the point. Opinions are fine...but it just makes more sense to be helpful and constructive rather than denegrating and negative for no reason other than to be denegrating and negative.
MonkeyGirl	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 7:15 PM Nothing i like more than being told i'm shit. it validates what i always knew anyway. i'm so going to join that site. no. wait. i don't need someone to tell me what i already know... do i? or do i? dammit. music by nature is subjective. if someone doesn't like it f*ck em. the next person might. besides if it makes you happy playing it then what does it matter what anyone else thinks, really? Constructive critcism is fair enough; everyone can learn and improve from it (and i'm always delighted if Alex (theblacklodge) comments on one of my songs because he leaves insightful, constructive comments) but disparaging a song just because it isn't to your taste is poor, and demonstrates little more than a disturbing combination lack of intelligence and breathtaking arrogance on behalf of the critic. Save it for the letters pages. Personally I don't think Simon Cowell's name should feature in a music forum... he wouldn't recognise a decent new song if it was stuck between a stripper's breasts. Marketing, promotion & sales is his game, not music. Otherwise he wouldn't be systemically destroying it peddling endless money spinning programmes that could be considered light entertainment; if you get your kicks at the expense of someone elses humiliation (sometimes, i admit, sometimes) and forcing new music ever more underground due to lack of funding, or committment beyond one album. That said, its pretty obvious from the site, like Pop Idol, what you're gonna get. Don't go to the auditions if you're not prepared to be made to look like a dick. now. where do i sign up?
TameasDust	Date: July 28, 2006 @ 7:39 PM The nice things about opinions is that they don't have to be right.
Saint	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 12:07 AM Well my song has been posted there for almost 2 days now.I've gotten some really good input on that site.I like it because the opinions are completely unbiased...noone knows me there,and some of the members really do give good insight and reviews...its mostly the people who judge you the first time to decide where on the site you get placed that are assholes.And then there are those that just comment to be mean but between those their are some people on the site.It will never beat dmusic as they have no shoutboxes and a forum layout from hell and if you want to chat you kinda have to do it on your song's comment box...but if you want really honest reviews i'd give it a shot for a few days
Opossum	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 3:37 AM My father, who was in the industry for well over 50 years and worked with Woody Guthrie and a few blues singers of the old days, even writing polka and waltz standards, never even mentioned critics or judges as it didn't even seem to be an issue with him. I don't even know to this day if he even knew they existed. Myself, I certainly enjoy both positive and negative feedback, but REGARDLESS of whatever you do, you're going to have a lot of fans. Listening to the radio is certainly proof of that.
Opossum	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 3:42 AM And yeah, any art is subjective. Look on IMDb and you'll see that some movies on there have just as many "one" votes as "ten" votes, even in the thousands...
Opossum	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 6:41 AM With regard to that site, I got an "illegal operation" from a plug-in? First time for everything. I'll check it out when I get the chance again.
zedsalt	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 11:00 AM Does anyone have a copy of...crap, now the name escapes me...Wolf Marshall? Hound Dog Marshall? The dude who did (does?) reviews for High Times...I'm looking for his "The Fifty Worst Things to Ever Happen to Rock"...or maybe it's "The 100 Worst..."...something like that... In it, he slags basically everything that could be considered a "sub genre" of Rock, except maybe Surf and Garage. I'd really like to find a copy of that.
DeadraveN	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 11:40 AM Sounds awesome. Note me if you ever find it, zed.
GreatGooglyM...	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 12:05 PM i just like knowing why someone didnt like something i worked on, instead of just telling me it sucks, without a real reason as to why. Why is it worse than people sucking you up without a reason?
theblacklodge	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 3:31 PM "Date: July 29, 2006 @ 12:05 PM i just like knowing why someone didnt like something i worked on, instead of just telling me it sucks, without a real reason as to why. Why is it worse than people sucking you up without a reason?" Of course, out of a "constructive analytical reviewing" perspective both the sucking up without a reason and the "telling it sucks" without a reason would fail to achieve what such a review can accomplish, and if you set your mind to only appreciate those kinds of reviews then it sucks. I personally don't set my mind to that, I want to appreciate comments that don't contain anaylitical language and form, and that's when the positive acknowledgement becomes an encouragement. If someone just tells me "this is all so crappily made", is not constructive or analytical and it could not serve as an encouragement from someone who's a fan. It's up to you to be suspicious of people, pointing fingers and say: "they would all rave anyway, whatever you did, those people who make such stupid comments!!!" Seeing things that way, is your problem then..
DeadraveN	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 4:14 PM rest of the comments are... here the rest will be positive encouragement, and as alex points out, that is helpful in it's own way. At a place like redfizz however, the rest will be moronic blabber; someone trying to be funny at someone else's expense, and I don't think that's helpful in any way to anyone. I don't see any problem with appreciating encouragement and resenting pointless negativity. :shrug: " id="237419">"positive acknowledgement becomes an encouragement." that's a truth that a lot of us, myself included, tend to overlook when we get so greedy for constructive criticism and analysis. thanks for the reminder, Alex. the truth is, places like dmusic and redfizz are similar in that only a certain small percentage of the comments are going to be truly "helpful" in terms of analysis and criticism... the real difference between the sites is what the rest of the comments are... here the rest will be positive encouragement, and as alex points out, that is helpful in it's own way. At a place like redfizz however, the rest will be moronic blabber; someone trying to be funny at someone else's expense, and I don't think that's helpful in any way to anyone. I don't see any problem with appreciating encouragement and resenting pointless negativity.
GreatGooglyM...	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 4:17 PM Lets all praise mediocrity then, shall we?
Woof	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 9:27 PM And who decides what's mediocre and what isn't? Should we appoint a council? Have hearings for each artist that's ever come and gone? I know people who think that Janis Joplin has a terrible voice. Maybe we should re-think whether she belongs in the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame... Better yet, let's establish limits and criteria for playing, so that only a limited number of permutations are classified as "music". That way, we can instantly gauge whether a performer is "musical" or "not musical" based on whether they're repeating the proven formula we devise. And when only the proven formula exists anymore, every song that's ever "music", will be sung, and we can all stop playing and move on.
theblacklodge	Date: July 29, 2006 @ 10:17 PM "Lets all praise mediocrity then, shall we?" I rest my case. It's your choices, your standards.
SimonWaldram	Date: July 30, 2006 @ 8:27 AM This is an excerpt from an interview with Steve Albini in response to being asked how he feels about producing bands who make music that he himself doesn't like. I think it's very applicable to this discussion: "Well, I think I've been in enough situations to realize that every band has an aesthetic. It may not be an aesthetic that I find particularly laudable or whatever, but it might just be that I don't get it. Before he died, John Peel said something that I thought was really profound. He said when he gets a record from somebody and he doesn't like it, he assumes that it's his problem and that the band would not have made that record if there wasn't something valuable about it. And I kinda feel like that's an appropriate perspective. Like this band wants to make this record - for some reason, they really want to do this - and they can get a lot of satisfaction out of it. And I get to witness their satisfaction, and how fucking cool is that? It's like being there on Christmas morning watching kids open their presents. It's like you get to see somebody having the time of his life, satisfying some deep ambition of his, and bringing something into existence from his own creative impulse. Seeing the satisfaction in other people and getting to be a part of it and helping that happen - regardless of what it is, it could be a fucking nursery rhyme, you know? But that it happens at all is immensely rewarding." From: http://www.markprindle.com/albini-i.htm
kingo	Date: July 30, 2006 @ 8:44 PM Googly: If saying, "This rocks, I really enjoyed it," especially when that's an honest statement, is praising mediocrity, then I'm all for it. In fact I'll chair the Committee for Praise of Mediocrity. What this comes back to, over and over, it seems to me, is that you're under the impression that there's some way you can objectively measure the "enjoyment" factor of a song. It's like you're thinking, "Shit, man, these people are full of shit, saying this is a good song. Whoever made this song had the enjoyment knob barely cranked past 2. Can't they see that?" Encouraging people is worthwhile. Whether it's more or less worthwhile than constructive critique depends on the audience.
Woof	Date: July 30, 2006 @ 9:27 PM One other way I'd put it, is that listening to loads of Zappa, Yes, Concrete Blonde, and Leonard Cohen hasn't lessened my enjoyment of The Raspberries, The Hollies, or The Cowsills one bit.
Opossum	Date: July 31, 2006 @ 2:43 AM