Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.harmless wrote:You said that Adele is quality FOR HER, meaning that you don't think Adele is as great a quality as, say, Pearl Jam. I wonder why you'd say that since, by your logic, she's much better because she sells more records.IlluminEddie wrote:I've been saying that sales is a reasonable proxy for quality for an individual or band IF and ONLY IF it's used to make album by album comparisons for ranking that individual or bands material against itself. I suppose you could say radio play for said individual or band's singles - relative to their other material could work too, but as I mentioned earlier singles are different from albums and probably a worse proxy. So, I'm not sure what you meant.harmless wrote:What's with the qualification (for her)? You don't think Adele being played on the radio proves their quality?IlluminEddie wrote:This is one of the reasons this place is annoying. It's as if you're implying 'high quality' is synonymous with 'not being played often on the radio' or even broader 'not being liked by the general public'. Does this mean Adele's Rolling in the Deep and other hits are not 'high quality' (for her) because they were played on the radio often? The songs of hers that are not played often are therefore, 'higher quality'?Thejambi wrote:I am not a Riot Act fan . It is not a radio album. I like Backspacer better but I'd have to say the quality of the songs on RA are better.IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.
This is why I say "hipster" to describe folks here. Hipsters love to say they like stuff that no one else likes, or that the stuff no one else likes is the highest quality. Contrarian may be a better word, but I've also used that to describe some here.
I will say once you try to extend this from one individual to compare individuals (or bands) across genres, I'd say it doesn't hold. In other words, comparing Justin Beiber to Pearl Jam doesn't make sense with sales. But, comparing Justin Beiber's albums to Justin Beiber's albums does.
Song of the Moment: Sirens
- Thejambi
- Rank This Poster
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Fri April 12, 2013 8:12 pm
- Location: Potato
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
There's the dog. You can't fake that stuff. Confess with your mouth.
- Chris_H_2
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 15599
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm
- Location: An office full of assholes
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
"Things that an anti-semite would say?"BurtReynolds wrote:she's not super! look at that nose!Chris_H_2 wrote:And because he married a [super]model, right?doug rr wrote:EJ wrote:doug rr wrote:
she likes Willie Nelson's version better...She just really hates Ed now though so its all understandable
its because of this, right?![]()
ya, that didnt help
-
IlluminEddie
- Broken Tamborine
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Fri July 12, 2013 8:16 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
Read the full context.harmless wrote:You said that Adele is quality FOR HER, meaning that you don't think Adele is as great a quality as, say, Pearl Jam. I wonder why you'd say that since, by your logic, she's much better because she sells more records.IlluminEddie wrote:I've been saying that sales is a reasonable proxy for quality for an individual or band IF and ONLY IF it's used to make album by album comparisons for ranking that individual or bands material against itself. I suppose you could say radio play for said individual or band's singles - relative to their other material could work too, but as I mentioned earlier singles are different from albums and probably a worse proxy. So, I'm not sure what you meant.harmless wrote:What's with the qualification (for her)? You don't think Adele being played on the radio proves their quality?IlluminEddie wrote:This is one of the reasons this place is annoying. It's as if you're implying 'high quality' is synonymous with 'not being played often on the radio' or even broader 'not being liked by the general public'. Does this mean Adele's Rolling in the Deep and other hits are not 'high quality' (for her) because they were played on the radio often? The songs of hers that are not played often are therefore, 'higher quality'?Thejambi wrote:I am not a Riot Act fan . It is not a radio album. I like Backspacer better but I'd have to say the quality of the songs on RA are better.IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.
This is why I say "hipster" to describe folks here. Hipsters love to say they like stuff that no one else likes, or that the stuff no one else likes is the highest quality. Contrarian may be a better word, but I've also used that to describe some here.
I will say once you try to extend this from one individual to compare individuals (or bands) across genres, I'd say it doesn't hold. In other words, comparing Justin Beiber to Pearl Jam doesn't make sense with sales. But, comparing Justin Beiber's albums to Justin Beiber's albums does.
-
doug rr
- The Master
- Posts: 27424
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 3:45 pm
- Location: I'm now Canadian..go broncos
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
My wife is a smart woman..she can see through his BS..much the same reason she cant stand Sean Penn..that video just confirmed it for her..she still loves a lot of the music thoughChris_H_2 wrote:And because he married a [super]model, right?doug rr wrote:EJ wrote:doug rr wrote:
she likes Willie Nelson's version better...She just really hates Ed now though so its all understandable
its because of this, right?![]()
ya, that didnt help
- harmless
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 17337
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
I'd rather not.IlluminEddie wrote:Read the full context.harmless wrote:You said that Adele is quality FOR HER, meaning that you don't think Adele is as great a quality as, say, Pearl Jam. I wonder why you'd say that since, by your logic, she's much better because she sells more records.IlluminEddie wrote:I've been saying that sales is a reasonable proxy for quality for an individual or band IF and ONLY IF it's used to make album by album comparisons for ranking that individual or bands material against itself. I suppose you could say radio play for said individual or band's singles - relative to their other material could work too, but as I mentioned earlier singles are different from albums and probably a worse proxy. So, I'm not sure what you meant.harmless wrote:What's with the qualification (for her)? You don't think Adele being played on the radio proves their quality?IlluminEddie wrote:This is one of the reasons this place is annoying. It's as if you're implying 'high quality' is synonymous with 'not being played often on the radio' or even broader 'not being liked by the general public'. Does this mean Adele's Rolling in the Deep and other hits are not 'high quality' (for her) because they were played on the radio often? The songs of hers that are not played often are therefore, 'higher quality'?Thejambi wrote:I am not a Riot Act fan . It is not a radio album. I like Backspacer better but I'd have to say the quality of the songs on RA are better.IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.
This is why I say "hipster" to describe folks here. Hipsters love to say they like stuff that no one else likes, or that the stuff no one else likes is the highest quality. Contrarian may be a better word, but I've also used that to describe some here.
I will say once you try to extend this from one individual to compare individuals (or bands) across genres, I'd say it doesn't hold. In other words, comparing Justin Beiber to Pearl Jam doesn't make sense with sales. But, comparing Justin Beiber's albums to Justin Beiber's albums does.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
- Thejambi
- Rank This Poster
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Fri April 12, 2013 8:12 pm
- Location: Potato
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
In no way did I remotely imply that. Just because a song is a hit doesn't make it quality. The same as just because a song isn't a radio hit doesn't make it inferior.IlluminEddie wrote:Mature. What I said was true. You implied that high quality is synonymous with not being played often. That sounds like a fun world to live in.Thejambi wrote:You are hopelessly retarded.IlluminEddie wrote:This is one of the reasons this place is annoying. It's as if you're implying 'high quality' is synonymous with 'not being played often on the radio' or even broader 'not being liked by the general public'. Does this mean Adele's Rolling in the Deep and other hits are not 'high quality' (for her) because they were played on the radio often? The songs of hers that are not played often are therefore, 'higher quality'?Thejambi wrote:I am not a Riot Act fan . It is not a radio album. I like Backspacer better but I'd have to say the quality of the songs on RA are better.IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.
This is why I say "hipster" to describe folks here. Hipsters love to say they like stuff that no one else likes, or that the stuff no one else likes is the highest quality. Contrarian may be a better word, but I've also used that to describe some here.
You've had terrible logic from the start.
There's the dog. You can't fake that stuff. Confess with your mouth.
- stip
- The worst
- Posts: 42946
- Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
I still like reading the older posts.Heathen wrote:deny all you want but if you're still here that means you're still a bit invested in this boardstip wrote:if RM doesn't hold my interest anymore I'm not sure it's worth the time. There's lots of other message boards I could be posting on.Heathen wrote:if you've read them only once I don't think you can really get these posts, you might have to start againstip wrote:phew, made it
I Am No Guide - Pearl Jam Song by Song - Out now!
He/Him/His
He/Him/His
-
IlluminEddie
- Broken Tamborine
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Fri July 12, 2013 8:16 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
-
gems and rhinestones
- likes rhythmic things that butt up against each other
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Sun January 20, 2013 8:02 am
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
Yet a lot of other smart women don't hate him and think he is genuine.doug rr wrote:My wife is a smart woman..she can see through his BS..much the same reason she cant stand Sean Penn..that video just confirmed it for her..she still loves a lot of the music thoughChris_H_2 wrote:And because he married a [super]model, right?doug rr wrote:EJ wrote:doug rr wrote:
she likes Willie Nelson's version better...She just really hates Ed now though so its all understandable
its because of this, right?![]()
ya, that didnt help
- Norah
- Poster of the Year
- Posts: 37455
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
- Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
lolstip wrote:I still like reading the older posts.Heathen wrote:deny all you want but if you're still here that means you're still a bit invested in this boardstip wrote:if RM doesn't hold my interest anymore I'm not sure it's worth the time. There's lots of other message boards I could be posting on.Heathen wrote:if you've read them only once I don't think you can really get these posts, you might have to start againstip wrote:phew, made it
- dimejinky99
- what on earth am I talking about
- Posts: 39789
- Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 12:35 am
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
stip wrote:I still like reading the older posts.Heathen wrote:deny all you want but if you're still here that means you're still a bit invested in this boardstip wrote:if RM doesn't hold my interest anymore I'm not sure it's worth the time. There's lots of other message boards I could be posting on.Heathen wrote:if you've read them only once I don't think you can really get these posts, you might have to start againstip wrote:phew, made it
I hope we never lose the ever unflappable Stip
Calibrate your enthusiasm
- harmless
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 17337
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
Nobody's said that though.IlluminEddie wrote:No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
- Jaeti
- Future Drummer
- Posts: 2642
- Joined: Mon July 08, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
Yeah, I'm nervous about making my girlfriend listen to it. Not just because of what it is, but because she's 8.5 years younger than me. Pearl Jam has never been in her musical conscience. I think I'll need to institute the you-must-listen-four-times rule.bodysnatcher wrote:about to send this song (video version) to my wife with a little trepidation to see what she thinks.
- harmless
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 17337
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
Yup.gems and rhinestones wrote:Yet a lot of other smart women don't hate him and think he is genuine.doug rr wrote:My wife is a smart woman..she can see through his BS..much the same reason she cant stand Sean Penn..that video just confirmed it for her..she still loves a lot of the music thoughChris_H_2 wrote:And because he married a [super]model, right?doug rr wrote:EJ wrote:doug rr wrote:
she likes Willie Nelson's version better...She just really hates Ed now though so its all understandable
its because of this, right?![]()
ya, that didnt help
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
-
IlluminEddie
- Broken Tamborine
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Fri July 12, 2013 8:16 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
harmless wrote:Nobody's said that though.IlluminEddie wrote:No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
He "implied it". Once again, go read the full thing in context this time.
- Jaeti
- Future Drummer
- Posts: 2642
- Joined: Mon July 08, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
harmless wrote:DON'T DO IT THIS IS ABOUT USbodysnatcher wrote:about to send this song (video version) to my wife with a little trepidation to see what she thinks.
- harmless
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 17337
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
Let her discover it for herself, no one needs latter-day Pearl Jam forced upon them.Jaeti wrote:Yeah, I'm nervous about making my girlfriend listen to it. Not just because of what it is, but because she's 8.5 years younger than me. Pearl Jam has never been in her musical conscience. I think I'll need to institute the you-must-listen-four-times rule.bodysnatcher wrote:about to send this song (video version) to my wife with a little trepidation to see what she thinks.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
-
AllNiteThing
- A Return To Form
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Mon July 15, 2013 7:26 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
IlluminEddie wrote:No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
You're not too familiar with the definition of 'logic', are you?
- harmless
- 10Club Complaint Department
- Posts: 17337
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:41 pm
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
Well you implied a lot of things yourself, so...IlluminEddie wrote:harmless wrote:Nobody's said that though.IlluminEddie wrote:No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.
He "implied it". Once again, go read the full thing in context this time.
RisingTides wrote:There is more kindness on the internet than we would care to admit to ourselves. Sometimes we are so afraid of falling victim to a ruse, we miss out on actual opportunities.
- Norah
- Poster of the Year
- Posts: 37455
- Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:04 pm
- Location: September 2020 Poster of the Month
Re: New Song (9.19.13): Sirens
I'm so ino everything the IlluminEddie account it's sickening.