Minimalism

I just love how people always feel they have to defend a certain kind of music by attacking an "opposite genre/composer" with ridiculous blanket statements. This is directed at QcC's Boulez bashing as well. Just because someone makes unfunded accusations against music you like, doesn't mean you have to do the same with the music you assume the other person likes. It wasn't Boulez who attacked Glass in this thread, so why even bring him up?

Gardner, please, read the thread.

GianLuca felt the need to write the smarmiest, most condescending "parody" of minimalism, a very few post before my Boulez comment.

STOP fixating on my comment and take the time to read what he wrote and how equally unacceptable his comment was. You MIGHT then understand the context for my "parody".

You're being a bit hypocritical here in attacking me for my Boulez joke, yet leaving GianLuca's Glass post uncommented upon.

How about showing the SAME egalitarian outrage over the fact that GianLuca obviously hates minimalism and had no real reason to post in this thread other than to bash minimalists? His comment was in no way constructive (following the general trend of MOST of his comments).

Let me be fair and egalitarian in turn: I actually passionately dislike the music of Philip Glass. I just see no need to be smarmy and sarcastic about it within this thread.

Maybe if this was an "Oh God! I really hate Philip Glass's music" thread, it might be a different situation.

I did read the thread.

The only reason I didn't attack gianluca's post was because it seemed so obviously out of place anyways. Other people already commented on it, so I didn't feel the need to do so too. By no means I find yours or HymnSpace's post more offensive than gianluca's, so my comment was more meant as a "don't step down to his level". So I quite understand the context of your quote. This is not in the least about whether Glass or Boulez are more "worth" to be defended, simply about not answering every attack on a composer with an attack on another composer. Attacking Boulez in such a way doesn't just attack gianluca, but also everyone else who happens to appreciate Boulez, but who doesn't share gianluca's point of view in the least.

But my post was more directed at HymnSpace's "Boulez is cacophony" remark anyways, than at your post. I just included yours because it had the same problem, to me. If HymnSpace hadn't posted, I wouldn't have replied at all. (And I don't really mind "it's easy to write in style X" comments much anyways, as I find that completely irrelevant to the question of quality.)

It seems odd to me that someone would want to study minimalism. Since minimalism seems to be the default of what my scores tend to be and easier to compose. Going beyond minimalism for me any ways, takes alot more effort.

I think you will find that writing good minimalism is rather harder than you think. I would say that writing music that is atonal (or at least very cacophonous such as the aforementioned Boulez) is much easier....or at least I feel it is

hahahhahaha

I enjoy the concept of minimalism and I think it is good to draw from it and incorporate some elements of it, just like almost every other genre of music. Every genre brings something to the table.

Personally listening to minimalism is fun but not always super-fulfilling, musically. Works like "Music in 12 Parts" by Glass are more like "These textures are cool" whereas a work like "The Chairman Dances" by Adams is more like "These textures are cool, and the piece really goes somewhere too" and so I find the latter more fulfilling. But equally pleasant.

I enjoy the concept of minimalism and I think it is good to draw from it and incorporate some elements of it, just like almost every other genre of music. Every genre brings something to the table.

Personally listening to minimalism is fun but not always super-fulfilling, musically. Works like "Music in 12 Parts" by Glass are more like "These textures are cool" whereas a work like "The Chairman Dances" by Adams is more like "These textures are cool, and the piece really goes somewhere too" and so I find the latter more fulfilling. But equally pleasant.

Bam!

STOP fixating on my comment and take the time to read what he wrote and how equally unacceptable his comment was. You MIGHT then understand the context for my "parody".

At least my "parody" had a greater basis in truth than yours. Glass actually does write formulaic music (this is not to bash him, but face it - he has been churning out the same earcandy for years now; however, I have stated elsewhere on this board that I do respect his more radical earlier stuff), whereas Boulez does not and keeps reinventing his musical idiom.

What about Louis Andriessen? He's certainly an interesting take-off on the minimalist school.

I agree. Andriessen is one of the most interesting minimalists and perhaps the only one who has been able to combine minimalist techniques with post-war European modernism and dissonance. Although not everything I've heard by him has the same strength, at least Andriessens harmonic language is way more interesting, complex and sophisticated than the simplistic, easy-going triadic harmonies of John Adams and Philip Glass.

the only one who has been able to combine minimalist techniques with post-war European modernism and dissonance.

...

easy-going triadic harmonies of John Adams

...

(Yeah, btw, NOTHING new can be done with triadic harmonies! In fact, nothing new can be done with words built out of letters. Time for innovation. Wait - improvement! 12387 502 239872356 3847 378 34736429 38 747 477. 3847 378!! 87 3847 18 9843 734 71 38734 9 8 8378347.)

Boulez does not and keeps reinventing his musical idiom.

12398 7283 09127 63 30938743 873 634643 63463 3847 198271983 387 10238?

In English that means "Boulez is just pure rubbish though - who actually likes this scraggy?"

Just a rough translation though - my radical new message can't be cramped into the old language.

...

...

(Yeah, btw, NOTHING new can be done with triadic harmonies! In fact, nothing new can be done with words built out of letters. Time for innovation. Wait - improvement! 12387 502 239872356 3847 378 34736429 38 747 477. 3847 378!! 87 3847 18 9843 734 71 38734 9 8 8378347.)

12398 7283 09127 63 30938743 873 634643 63463 3847 198271983 387 10238?

LOL. NOTHING new can be done with triadic harmonies, is pretty much true ain't it? It's what you get when a system exists for centuries and centuries on end, eventually you'll run out of new things. That's what happens with every system and technique eventually.

There's nothing new under the sun~

About Boulez, uh. I don't know why he gets so much scraggy, nor Glass really. Come on. Might as well start bashing everyone from Cage to Vivaldi and Palestrina.

Oh wow people have different tastes in music? IMPOSSIBLE! It MUST be the composers that suck instead!!

...

...

(Yeah, btw, NOTHING new can be done with triadic harmonies! In fact, nothing new can be done with words built out of letters. Time for innovation. Wait - improvement! 12387 502 239872356 3847 378 34736429 38 747 477. 3847 378!! 87 3847 18 9843 734 71 38734 9 8 8378347.)

12398 7283 09127 63 30938743 873 634643 63463 3847 198271983 387 10238?

In English that means "Boulez is just pure rubbish though - who actually likes this scraggy?"

Just a rough translation though - my radical new message can't be cramped into the old language.

Boulez is an internationally acclaimed composer AND conductor, and he's in the history/theory books. What have you done?

What have you done?

1298 36761391 917263 3487 1209 8 3 1791 123987347 387 1756 123987 1826 91872 1953.

In English (if you're that backwards) - I haven't made shite music, and an idiot out of myself. And my hair is cooler than his.

1298 36761391 917263 3487 1209 8 3 1791 123987347 387 1756 123987 1826 91872 1953.

In English (if you're that backwards) - I haven't made shite music

In YOUR opinion

, and an idiot out of myself. And my hair is cooler than his.

Yes, a guy's cool level always goes up when he looks like a woman.

In YOUR opinion

Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant.

Yes, a guy's cool level always goes up when he looks like a woman.

Hell yes! Not to get off the topic, and descend to attempting personal insults though!

Hey guys,

I'm not really at a stage in my studies of composition where i can learn much about different techniques (I've never actually had a specific lesson on composition, just written what i can gather from the styles of other composers). I've recently been listening to some of Micheal Nylan's pieces and i was wondering if anyone would mind explaining to me some of the things i should consider when writing a minimalist piece such as rules i should follow, intervals to avoid ect.

I'd really appreciate some feedback - i'm getting quite into this style of music :)

thanks, ;)

No disrespect or anything, but hasn't this thread gone slightly off the point for which it was intended?

Can we please stop discussing Boulez? Otherwise I feel constantly torn between not wishing to help derail this thread (since clearly Boulez has nothing to do with minimalism), and wanting to defend Boulez against "cheap" accusations.

I never know whether to laugh or cry when these kinds of discussions (frays?) surface.

Mostly everyone has their own personal philosophy when it comes to aesthetics. It's subjective, because it's personal. Need I repeat that? It's subjective. For that reason, dogmatic statements of personal leanings never bode well in discussion: nobody can accept them, and nobody can rebut them.

gianluca obviously believes that "newness" is the most important (if not the only) factor in reaching value judgements. I don't personally subscribe to that. I believe it's important also to communicate with audiences in a language they will understand. Unless people in Europe or the US have spent some time immersed in musical academia, chances are they will possess a bias towards Western tonality, rhythm, timbre and all the rest of it. For better or for worst, this is the "language" people understand, and it's hardly surprising: they are Westerners who have grown up in a Western society surrounded by a dominant musical aesthetic. Sure, you want to innovate too, but if you depart significantly from a comprehensible reference point, you run the risk of confusing your listener. Think of it as the difference between inventing a new word and inventing a new grammatical construction, or even language.

Of course, some people (gianluca, Carter to name but two) are not concerned with how the audience will react. Again, I don't personally subscribe to that. I derive as much satisfaction from reaching out to my audience (whoever they may be) as I do creating something I am personally satisfied with.

Again, that's all my personal opinion, and I embrace the fact that there are people out there with differing views. But I draw the line at embracing philosophies of exclusivity: that is, I have trouble sympathising with viewpoints which dictate that my own be invalidated. It's a two way thing, after all.

Oh, and I dig minimalism.

I believe it's important also to communicate with audiences in a language they will understand. Unless people in Europe or the US have spent some time immersed in musical academia, chances are they will possess a bias towards Western tonality, rhythm, timbre and all the rest of it. For better or for worst, this is the "language" people understand, and it's hardly surprising: they are Westerners who have grown up in a Western society surrounded by a dominant musical aesthetic. Sure, you want to innovate too, but if you depart significantly from a comprehensible reference point, you run the risk of confusing your listener. Think of it as the difference between inventing a new word and inventing a new grammatical construction, or even language.

Of course, some people (gianluca, Carter to name but two) are not concerned with how the audience will react. Again, I don't personally subscribe to that. I derive as much satisfaction from reaching out to my audience (whoever they may be) as I do creating something I am personally satisfied with.

Don't underestimate an audience's ability to make sense out of anything you present them with, even if it's not related to the more popular or mainstream aesthetics. I'm more for supporting all sorts of aesthetics, since the only reason the popular ones are, well, popular, is because they've been around longer. Invariably, it depends what kind of audience you have. If it's regular folk, sure, you can bet on copying tradition as a device to get expectable reactions. But... is that really all there is?

I know that I like to take chances when I listen to music, go to concerts, etc. I listen to things I'm aware I may not like, but I listen to them anyways. To me it's part of the fun being surprised when something I thought was nonsense ends up having an effect. So, I try to write for people like me, who aren't afraid to go to a concert and just live the experience rather than hold prejudices for no reason.

I don't really feel the need to write music for people that think music is a masturbatory aid, that is to say, they'll just listen to what they know and like and never venture out of it because listening to what they know and like is all they want. And sadly, that's a whole huge lot of people I've just described, including a major percentage (?) of audiences everywhere. Academia or not, why bother writing for people who think the best music ever has already been written?

So, there are plenty of reasons to ignore audience altogether, since chances are the people that really believe in "the experience of music" are far too few to make any difference (yet!) and what you end up with is a lot of people who have uncomfortable bias AND an attitude which doesn't favor anything beyond their limited knowledge, with no possibility to grow. (Though I did say not to underestimate any audience...which is really lots of wishful thinking. And, I like to give people the benefit of doubt rather than assume everyone in an audience is a jerk!)

Really, it's as simple as, like a friend says "We make money, not art!" If that's the case? Then well, everything changes then, don't it? Once you expect something back like money, you'll probably want to use whatever "works." Whole different type of composition process or creativity, that. One I'm not fond of, honestly.

Anyways, even if the thread has derailed, most of what could be said about minimalism was said before! I mean, it's not like it derailed on the second post or anything. So it's not so horrible.

...

12387 502 239872356 3847 378 34736429 38 747 477. 3847 378!! 87 3847 18 9843 734 71 38734 9 8 8378347.)

12398 7283 09127 63 30938743 873 634643 63463 3847 198271983 387 10238?

Good job... now half the population is going to be speaking in numbers, and the other half like cavemen....

Ug, me no like numbertalk....

ROFLMAO!!!

About Boulez, uh. I don't know why he gets so much scraggy, nor Glass really. Come on. Might as well start bashing everyone from Cage to Vivaldi and Palestrina.

Like you said, there's nothing new under the sun.....

Oh wow people have different tastes in music? IMPOSSIBLE! It MUST be the composers that suck instead!!

LOL!!!

Boulez is an internationally acclaimed composer AND conductor, and he's in the history/theory books. What have you done?

I know this question wasn't asked of me, but I have the answer.

I've been listening.

The fact that people are listening is what put Boulez in the history books.

No disrespect or anything, but hasn't this thread gone slightly off the point for which it was intended?

Oh no. It's just secondary thematic development.... Haha.

Can we please stop discussing Boulez? Otherwise I feel constantly torn between not wishing to help derail this thread (since clearly Boulez has nothing to do with minimalism), and wanting to defend Boulez against "cheap" accusations.

In answer:

Boulez is an internationally acclaimed composer AND conductor, and he's in the history/theory books.

I think he can defend himself.

Again, that's all my personal opinion, and I embrace the fact that there are people out there with differing views. But I draw the line at embracing philosophies of exclusivity: that is, I have trouble sympathising with viewpoints which dictate that my own be invalidated. It's a two way thing, after all.

Bam!

I know that I like to take chances when I listen to music, go to concerts, etc. I listen to things I'm aware I may not like, but I listen to them anyways. To me it's part of the fun being surprised when something I thought was nonsense ends up having an effect. So, I try to write for people like me, who aren't afraid to go to a concert and just live the experience rather than hold prejudices for no reason.

And possibly because you want to enjoy hearing your music too?? After all, aren't you a part of your own audience, and a part that has a major effect on the music that gets written?

Personally I write stuff that I like, and if other people like it too, great. If not, oh well, at least I've satisfied myself.

So, there are plenty of reasons to ignore audience altogether, since chances are the people that really believe in "the experience of music" are far too few to make any difference (yet!) and what you end up with is a lot of people who have uncomfortable bias AND an attitude which doesn't favor anything beyond their limited knowledge, with no possibility to grow. (Though I did say not to underestimate any audience...which is really lots of wishful thinking. And, I like to give people the benefit of doubt rather than assume everyone in an audience is a jerk!)

I did mean to refer to the average ("classical") concert-going public, not the demographic which uses MTV as musical nourishment. I do think there's a gap between at least some contemporary aesthetics and what audiences like to hear - just look at all the Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc. occupying concert programmes nowadays. But people do also seem to be catching up in many ways, which is exciting. Realistically, I think it's unreasonable to expect "real-time" appreciation of the avant-garde. After all, that's why it's called the avant-garde.

And yes, I'd certainly write differently for my musically literate friends in contrast to what I'd produce for a commercial venture. I think that underlines my point about effective musical communication. It can help you earn money, and it can help you connect with people. I find both of these prospects rewarding. ;)

P.S. rwgriffith, were you bamming me in a good way or a bad way?

In a good way!

You validate your viewpoint by having it. It is, after all, a perspective. No one perspective is 'better' than another. More advantageous in certain situations perhaps, but not 'better'.

In fact, unless you've seen something from every possible perspective, you aren't getting the whole picture. Something very few of us are able to do.

Can we please stop discussing Boulez? Otherwise I feel constantly torn between not wishing to help derail this thread (since clearly Boulez has nothing to do with minimalism), and wanting to defend Boulez against "cheap" accusations.

Yeah, let's stop discussing Boulez in this thread. For a moment, I felt the urge to passionately defend Boulez against those ignorant insults (such as the ones uttered by that Daniel guy), but then I thought they were too foolish to be taken seriously.

I derive as much satisfaction from reaching out to my audience (whoever they may be) as I do creating something I am personally satisfied with.

To me, reaching out to the audience and writing something I am truly satisfied with as a composer are two irreconcilable things. Maybe things were different in former times when the general public was still slightly more musically educated. But nowadays it seems that, to quote Carter once again "most audiences are in same position I was in when I was a little boy." Even worse, the only musical language most audiences nowadays will understand is the language of pop music (which, as you may know, I see as the enemy of classical music and as a form of intellectually vacuous and regressive culture, but that's a different discussion). As composers of art music, we strive to communicate deep and profound things, yet this only seems possible through a musical vocabulary that is unfamiliar and unintelligible to most listeners (and certainly not through the vocabulary of pop music). However, I take comfort in the fact that the works which, in the end, turned out to be important landmarks in the history of western art music were very often works which were not understood by audiences in their time and which considered reaching out to the audience as a secondary matter.

I did mean to refer to the average ("classical") concert-going public, not the demographic which uses MTV as musical nourishment. I do think there's a gap between at least some contemporary aesthetics and what audiences like to hear - just look at all the Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc. occupying concert programmes nowadays. But people do also seem to be catching up in many ways, which is exciting. Realistically, I think it's unreasonable to expect "real-time" appreciation of the avant-garde. After all, that's why it's called the avant-garde.

And yes, I'd certainly write differently for my musically literate friends in contrast to what I'd produce for a commercial venture. I think that underlines my point about effective musical communication. It can help you earn money, and it can help you connect with people. I find both of these prospects rewarding. ;)

I suspect a lot of people underestimate the "average" audience's ability to appreciate music that is more demanding of them.

Probably this attitude is brought about through people like Carter et al who treat the audience as a "necessary annoyance".

I've seen rapturous receptions given to new works, and this from the "ordinary" concert audience.

There is a fine line between blowing your audience off and at least TRYING to communicate with them.

I notice that many film-score afficionados are not particularly "musically trained", and yet, they are fully capable of appreciating the less lyrical moments of many of the great filmscores of the past years. For example, Close Encounters of the Third Kind has a great many fans, yet it is one of those John Williams scores with the least "accessible" music.

I see nothing wrong with bridging gaps.

I do see something wrong with blowing off the audience and treating them like imbeciles.

To me, reaching out to the audience and writing something I am truly satisfied with as a composer are two irreconcilable things. Maybe things were different in former times when the general public was still slightly more musically educated. But nowadays it seems that, to quote Carter once again "most audiences are in same position I was in when I was a little boy."

This may not be Carter's (or your) implication, but the above strikes me as demeaningly portraying dissenting audiences as childlike. Such an attitude is exactly what will continue to separate much of musical academia from the mainstream. If, as with the case of a child, audiences need educating (which they probably do), you can either sit them down with a text book and/or lecture them, or you can introduce them to aspects of avant-garde thinking via a distorted flavour of a pre-existing medium which they understand.

Of course, this principle needn't restrict itself to music. I know one person who took a liking to ambient music after watching Donnie Darko. And I reckon that the Qatsi trilogy might find some as a door into minimalism. With something subjective, personal and conditionable like music, stubborn dogmatic statements rarely yield results, regardless of their rational veracity.

As composers of art music, we strive to communicate deep and profound things, yet this only seems possible through a musical vocabulary that is unfamiliar and unintelligible to most listeners (and certainly not through the vocabulary of pop music). However, I take comfort in the fact that the works which, in the end, turned out to be important landmarks in the history of western art music were very often works which were not understood by audiences in their time and which considered reaching out to the audience as a secondary matter.

If a piece of music really is unintelligible to the listener, then the communicative attempt has surely failed. Forget about any deep and profound intent - if it is lost upon the listener, it is a wasted exercise, no?

The only recourse then becomes to pass the buck onto future generations who, it is relied upon, may decide that there is in fact a message contained within the music; something to relate to, something to grab hold of, something that renders it of interest, significance etc. As you rightly point out, this has sometimes been the case. However, the fact that it rests quite heavily on a simple assumption renders it quite precarious in my view - sort of a flirtation with wishful thinking.

And to whom are we referring with regards to eventual acceptance, anyway? Musicologists and academics, or audiences? If it is to be a historical reprisal of a little-known (or even unknown) gem, it's the musicologists who will do the digging. And we all know that musicologists and audiences often don't relate to one another very well. In a very real sense, especially taking into account the financial realities of orchestras, record labels etc. and music's status as a social meme, it seems to me a safer bet to at least partially chase after the audience when seeking out longevity, or verifiable acceptance.

I suspect a lot of people underestimate the "average" audience's ability to appreciate music that is more demanding of them.

Probably this attitude is brought about through people like Carter et al who treat the audience as a "necessary annoyance".

I've seen rapturous receptions given to new works, and this from the "ordinary" concert audience.

There is a fine line between blowing your audience off and at least TRYING to communicate with them.

I agree, and I think exploiting this "grey area" is a very viable strategy, which as far as I can tell you also seem to believe.

Blah Blah Blah (Some good points, though! Well the one about film music is good.)

...

I do see something wrong with blowing off the audience and treating them like imbeciles.

[Warning: Oh scraggy I'm going to rant, hold on to your hats~]

But that is FUN! ... To me!

I think the audience as a necessary annoyance is really a nice way to say it in my case. Honestly, I don't really give a scraggy if anyone understands anything I write or likes it at all, because if I did I wouldn't write half the things I do because I'd be afraid of their reactions and flying beer bottles.

Though it's nice getting good comments, I'm really stubborn when it comes to suggestions. Opinions are one thing, but I have a thing against people who think they should be writing your music instead of, well, yourself.

Which sums up a lot of the "in the know (GROAN)" crowd really. So, honestly I'd rather have an audience who has no idea what they're listening to and hate it because the last thing they liked was a the new linkin park video than a bunch of people trying to describe scraggy in made-up terminology I don't begin to understand, passing it off as "constructive critique!" If you want to comment, the least you can do is be honest and not buy into the black-wearing artsy-fartsy lie. If your gut hates something, or likes something (or doesn't care), it's FINE if you don't have a 9000 word essay on hand to explain why. Really. It's fine.

Also, the Quatsi Trilogy is FANTASTIC. The music? FANTASTIC. I didn't get into minimalism because of it (almost did though), sure, but it makes me appreciate Philip Glass that much more. His symphonies aren't bad either. I can't disqualify him if he can pull off such a loving amazing piece of work in my opinion.

Another thing, there's no "wasted" experiences. So long as there's a REACTION then it's not wasted (even indifference can be a reaction?) Sure, the "Message" wouldn't have gone through, but you know what? Unless you print the message out in all languages on your program notes and distribute it on P2P under ParisXXXSECRETVIDEO it's not going to get as much attention as the actual music. The actual music is (generally!) pretty terrible at giving any sort of message, even if the lyrics are right there telling you what the message is (if the music has lyrics!) Look at all the gazillion interpretations of famous Operas, rock songs, ETC ETC.

Hell, I've said it before, but I'd rather people HATE my music and "Not get it" than people nodding pretending to understand what I did and "get it" when there was nothing to GET! I've purposely written things (that have gone into actual concerts with actual audience!) which have NO REAL MEANING WHAT SO EVER and I wrote them on the idea that they sounded pretty.

And then comes some avant-gardistic asshat who claims he "got it" and blah blah blah, finding whatever merits in what otherwise was just a "HAHA that sounds awesome LOL!" musical ejaculation! Likewise, it's like when I write complex 6 voice fugues and people look at me like I have a goddamn doctorate in occultism/magic because I copied a style well enough to poop it out effortlessly.

But just as well, I don't really mean to say anything with it a lot of times and I write it because it sounds "Pretty!" to me. SO I can't really say that copy-pasting lots of cow mooing noises together and adding randomly generated reverb effects and then intermittently adding an old sitcom laugh track on top has LESS or MORE inherent meaning than a 19th century style sonata for piano. People are just conditioned to think one thing, I like them to be angry/scared/confused/? when they're forced to deal with scraggy they simply can't fit into their little "oh lol this goes here!" mental-organization-system-box-thing.

Needless to say, for best results, mix cow noises with sonata form.

More rambling: Any old imbecile like me can copy styles and churn them out with some creativity and impress people enough in the academic world that you get your pieces played despite never really studying music anywhere ever before then (LOL!) So really, it's nothing to be impressed about nor is it anything to be proud of though it's highly amusing.

From my rather painful experience with the academic world in what seems to be half of Europe, South America and apparently Korea (except everyone in Korea seems to have 100 diplomas/degrees from all over the world for everything from fixing the toilet to applied thermodynamics) for some reason, you can bullshit all you want and you can tack on whatever nonsense meaning to your pieces or anyone else's pieces if it's "cool" enough to people who are old and occupy important places in academic hierarchy!

In the face of so much bullshit what can really be done? If you cater to an audience you're a sell out non-creative asspringle, if you do super-avant-garde music people will think you're either retarded or you're a modernist pretentious cakefest, if not they'll actually be modernist pretentious cakefests themselves!

IF you cut it somewhere in between people call you mediocre or that you haven't "found your voice!" I think it's only after you've gone through the whole suicide-inducing roller-coaster of measuring audience reception that you learn to stop giving a scraggy altogether and enjoy when someone doesn't walk away from something you did unaffected by it in some way.

Rant over!

[if this reads weird, it's because I've been watching too many of these: The Escapist : Zero Punctuation so imagine all of what I wrote, but spoken by this guy with those hilarious little illustrations he does while rapid-fires hilarious stuff. From his mouth.]

To each his own, then.

I appreciate those who truly feel that they require no recognition whatsoever from any sort of audience.

And a brief note to SSC:

the "blah blah blah" comment?

NOT nice. you're implying that what I said had no value.

Please edit your post to show a tiny bit more respect.

To each his own, then.

I appreciate those who truly feel that they require no recognition whatsoever from any sort of audience.

And a brief note to SSC:

the "blah blah blah" comment?

NOT nice. you're implying that what I said had no value.

Please edit your post to show a tiny bit more respect.

The hell I will, I did say you made a good point about the movie thing, I hadn't thought about it before. I DID clearly read what you wrote.

Don't assume I mean anything bad, disrespectful, etc, with the "blah blah blah" comment, because I don't. Might I add, that if I wanted to imply that what you say has no value, I'd actually say it outright. I don't like beating around the bush nor am I too good with subtleties. While I have a drastically (fistfight worthy) different opinions than yours (music and otherwise), and all that jazz, I think I can do better than something like that if I really wanted to say your opinion has no value. PLUS, I'd know better than to drag it into a thread that has ALREADY derailed spectacularly.