Quote:You tried to turn it from a subjective to an objective discussion, and attacked another opinion. Claiming to know more about music than someone else, then telling them they "know nothing" is trash talking.
I turned it from subjective to objective? No, that happened when it was stated that Metallica was one of the tightest bands live. That, without a doubt, is an objective declaration, one that can be measured and proven true or false. And where did I claim to know more about music? And the know nothing comment had nothing to do with his opinion of Metallica, but was in response to that drivel about amateur musicians playing for chips and guacamole.
Quote:I turned it from subjective to objective? No, that happened when it was stated that Metallica was one of the tightest bands live. That, without a doubt, is an objective declaration, one that can be measured and proven true or false. And where did I claim to know more about music? And the know nothing comment had nothing to do with his opinion of Metallica, but was in response to that drivel about amateur musicians playing for chips and guacamole.
Unless you attended the same concert as the person who posted about Metallica, you have no idea how "tight" they were. Unless you are recording not only the performances you attended, but the majority of Metallica concerts, listening to it with a metronome and tuning meter, your claim they are not tight is as subjective as his.
There is more to "music knowledge" than understanding technical aspects. His comment got under your skin, you attacked him. It happens. You made it very obvious you think you know more about music than him.
Quote:Unless you attended the same concert as the person who posted about Metallica, you have no idea how "tight" they were. Unless you are recording not only the performances you attended, but the majority of Metallica concerts, listening to it with a metronome and tuning meter, your claim they are not tight is as subjective as his.
There is more to "music knowledge" than understanding technical aspects. His comment got under your skin, you attacked him. It happens. You made it very obvious you think you know more about music than him.
I'm pretty sure I said that to him initially. "Must have caught them on a good night" were my words, I believe. But his point wasn't they were tight just this one time he saw them, more like they are one of tightest bands around.
And metronome and tuning meter? Are you for real? I ask this question honestly because I don't want it to seem like an insult, but do you have ears? By that, I mean, you can't tell if something is in tune or not? Some people can't, and that's fine, but you have to realize other people can. The same thing can be said of timing. The instruments are either landing on the beat, or they are not. Again, some people can hear that without assistance from a metronome. So, attempt to transmogrify the objective into the subjective all you want, I'm not buying it.
And I'm still looking for you to point out how I "trashed" his opinion. Let's review. He enjoys the later Metallica albums, thinking they contain great songs. I disagree, but say fantastic, I'm glad he enjoys them. He loves to see them play live. Again, awesome, and think it's great he supports a band he loves. He thinks they are currently the best metal band out there. I certainly don't agree with that, but yeah, that's all about taste, and there's no barometer for that.
And I went from stating I know more about music to just making it obvious. How did I do that again? Stating fact about pitch and meter?
You're using a lot of words, but "you know nothing, do you" is trash talk. You will no doubt try to talk your way around that, but it is what it is.
And, lost in all those words, was your assertion that I was being hypocritical when all I asked is if 2 bands are still relevant. That was no attack on anyone.
Quote:You're using a lot of words, but "you know nothing, do you" is trash talk. You will no doubt try to talk your way around that, but it is what it is.
And, lost in all those words, was your assertion that I was being hypocritical when all I asked is if 2 bands are still relevant. That was no attack on anyone.
Concerning your first point, that's been discussed already, so there's no need to talk in circles. Perhaps this conversation has run its course.
Concerning your second point, I must first ask, is it possible to have an honest discussion with you? You didn't just ask a question. I know this because I asked you about it specifically. When asked if your post was just a question, or was it commentary, you answered yes. Furthermore, you mentioned it was your opinion. Far beyond just asking a question.
Bottom line, I was critical of a band, as were you. You're hung up on some language I used in response to some secondary, superfluous issue that was raised.
Since we're supposedly being circular...
...you and Stroud both attended Metallica concerts. He thought they were tight, you thought they weren't. Yes, pitch and tempo can be objectively measured, but you would have us rely on your ear and experience. That's not objective evidence. What you were doing was subtly saying your opinion was more valid than his, because you understand and recognize pitch and tempo.
Quote:How can anybody make the argument that they are the tightest, best sounding band live? But it's been my experience that Metallica fans are unable to look at subject dispassionately.
It's not on the level of Richard Sherman going at Michael Crabtree, but I took that and other things to be trash talking about music.
I will agree you on one point, this has run its course.
Quote:Since we're supposedly being circular...
...you and Stroud both attended Metallica concerts. He thought they were tight, you thought they weren't. Yes, pitch and tempo can be objectively measured, but you would have us rely on your ear and experience. That's not objective evidence. What you were doing was subtly saying your opinion was more valid than his, because you understand and recognize pitch and tempo.
It's not on the level of Richard Sherman going at Michael Crabtree, but I took that and other things to be trash talking about music.
I will agree you on one point, this has run its course.
Not supposedly, definitely.
And I don't expect anybody to rely on anything I say. There's plenty of YouTube videos of live performances of them. In fact, I posted one in that thread. Let me know if you need to borrow a metronome and tuner to figure out what's wrong with that one. Again, not matter of opinion, it's matter of fact. I give you credit for still trying to make the objective subjective, but you still fail.
Quote:Since we're supposedly being circular...
...you and Stroud both attended Metallica concerts. He thought they were tight, you thought they weren't. Yes, pitch and tempo can be objectively measured, but you would have us rely on your ear and experience. That's not objective evidence. What you were doing was subtly saying your opinion was more valid than his, because you understand and recognize pitch and tempo.
It's not on the level of Richard Sherman going at Michael Crabtree, but I took that and other things to be trash talking about music.
I will agree you on one point, this has run its course.
Oh, by the way, I find it hilarious that I went from boldly stating I know more, to just making it obvious, to now being subtle about it. Keep trying different things, you may eventually land on the truth.
Quote:Not supposedly, definitely.
And I don't expect anybody to rely on anything I say. There's plenty of YouTube videos of live performances of them. In fact, I posted one in that thread. Let me know if you need to borrow a metronome and tuner to figure out what's wrong with that one. Again, not matter of opinion, it's matter of fact. I give you credit for still trying to make the objective subjective, but you still fail.
One thing is obviously clear - this is an important topic for you. I understand that from your point of view you were being objective, but in a discussion involving two people who saw different performances, what you hear is no more objective than what Stroud heard.
Clear, obvious, subtle, whatever. You think you know more about the quality of Metallica live performances, and you posted such.
I commented that I don't think AC/DC or Guns & Roses are relevant, and by posing it as a question invited input.
We've circled back to not agreeing.
The Jaguars just added 2 studs to their roster. that's my focus going forward.
Quote:One thing is obviously clear - this is an important topic for you. I understand that from your point of view you were being objective, but in a discussion involving two people who saw different performances, what you hear is no more objective than what Stroud heard.
Clear, obvious, subtle, whatever. You think you know more about the quality of Metallica live performances, and you posted such.
I commented that I don't think AC/DC or Guns & Roses are relevant, and by posing it as a question invited input.
We've circled back to not agreeing.
The Jaguars just added 2 studs to their roster. that's my focus going forward.
Still banging on that subjective drum, I see. And doing it as poorly as Lars Ulrich, I might add. Look, you have me convinced. Let's make everything subjective so nobody will be wrong about anything ever again. It's my opinion that we are discussing this topic on the Colts message board. Dare not say anything to me of the contrary, lest I accuse you of trashing my opinion, and declaring you know more than me.
And since I haven't yet, let me address your relevance question. You should really define relevance in this instance. It could be argued that if these bands still play music, and people are still buying tickets to see them play it, they are still relevant. You later mentioned something about them being nostalgia acts, to which I agree. But isn't that really true of most bands whose members are not in their twenties, maybe thirties? Take an iconic band like The Rolling Stones, who could probably still fill stadiums, and ponder the last material they released that anybody is familiar with. People go to hear them play "Satisfaction", "Sympathy For The Devil", and "Start Me Up", not whatever music they released in the last ten years, maybe twenty.
This is because people typically most identify with the music of their youth, and that music was played by the young. Teens and twenty-somethings have a hard time taking a fourty year old or beyond person, who is singing about sex, drugs and rock 'n roll, seriously.
There are, of course, exceptions to this. Pink Floyd is an example. Their albums were always well received all the way up to their last one. But those exceptions are rare.