Red Mosquito

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.

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.

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'?

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.

What's with the qualification (for her)? You don't think Adele being played on the radio proves their quality?

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.

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.

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.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

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

And because he married a [super]model, right?

she's not super! look at that nose!

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.

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.

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'?

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.

What's with the qualification (for her)? You don't think Adele being played on the radio proves their quality?

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.

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.

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.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

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

And because he married a [super]model, right?

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.

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.

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'?

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.

What's with the qualification (for her)? You don't think Adele being played on the radio proves their quality?

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.

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.

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.

Read the full context.

IlluminEddie wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

Thejambi wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote: So, you're saying Riot Act didn't have any hits? I agree. That could be one reason it sucks.

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.

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'?

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 are hopelessly retarded.

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.

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:phew, made it

if you've read them only once I don't think you can really get these posts, you might have to start again

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.

deny all you want but if you're still here that means you're still a bit invested in this board

Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.

doug rr wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

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

And because he married a [super]model, right?

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 though

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:phew, made it

if you've read them only once I don't think you can really get these posts, you might have to start again

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.

deny all you want but if you're still here that means you're still a bit invested in this board

I still like reading the older posts.

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:phew, made it

if you've read them only once I don't think you can really get these posts, you might have to start again

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.

deny all you want but if you're still here that means you're still a bit invested in this board

I still like reading the older posts.

IlluminEddie wrote:

Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.

No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.

bodysnatcher wrote:about to send this song (video version) to my wife with a little trepidation to see what she thinks.

gems and rhinestones wrote:

doug rr wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

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

And because he married a [super]model, right?

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 though

Yet a lot of other smart women don't hate him and think he is genuine.

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.

No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.

Nobody's said that though.

harmless wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:about to send this song (video version) to my wife with a little trepidation to see what she thinks.

DON'T DO IT THIS IS ABOUT US

Jaeti wrote:

bodysnatcher wrote:about to send this song (video version) to my wife with a little trepidation to see what she thinks.

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.

IlluminEddie wrote:

Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.

No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.

IlluminEddie wrote:

harmless wrote:

IlluminEddie wrote:

Thejambi wrote: Now the logic is only quality songs can be radio hits.

No, the logic is: anyone who thinks songs are higher quality because they are played less is an idiot.

Nobody's said that though.

He "implied it". Once again, go read the full thing in context this time.