I will take issue with this. What should a writer expect their audience to know? Should you never mention any artist other than the one you're talking about in a given article? Is it really THAT much of a leap of faith to assume people reading the music section of a Seattle weekly know who the fucking Buggles and Judas Preist are? Come on.
― ~~~~~~~~~, Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:39 (eighteen years ago) link
My point is that it is a total non sequitur, since he goes on to say something that has nothing to do with Corey Hart or Trevor Horn, except that Trevor Horn didn't produce "Turbo." I'm sure a lot of other people didn't produce Turbo, too!
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:41 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost: Trevor Horn is one of the lynchpins of the entire article. Corey Hart has a walk-on appearance as a point of comparison.
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:44 (eighteen years ago) link
"Come on?!" Are you fucking kidding? I had to strain my brain to remember Corey Hart. My friend didn't understand word one of this because as popular as all of these bands are to some people, it's not generally an overlapping group of people. And plenty of people, such as my friend, would be completely lost. If you're going to mention an artist, at least write clearly.
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:48 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost: wowie, I made a typo!
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:49 (eighteen years ago) link
Yeah, that would. I guess you're not very creative.
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:52 (eighteen years ago) link
What was your point?
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 18 December 2005 01:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:01 (eighteen years ago) link
And you just proved you did as well.
HAHAHA!
The overwrought run-on sentences and the myriad varied reference points were meant to mimic the winding and challenging multi-layered aspects of an epic prog Yes tune as well as the ever-changing sound of the band's continual evolution over 3 decades as well as the fact that their self-satisfying extended masturbatory musicianship was something many found difficult to sit through.
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:02 (eighteen years ago) link
1. dave q's article reads nicely (he frustrates some of my friends - they say things like "oooh! isn't HE clever" - these are same friends who think they're writers but don't actually write anything)
2. inside outside, you seem sort of dumm
3. i started listening to yes right after seeing buffalo 66, too!
― vahid (vahid), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― vahid (vahid), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:05 (eighteen years ago) link
haha I read it fine; I just allowed that my interpretation might be off.
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:06 (eighteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― the people are such untight s wads (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― vahid (vahid), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:10 (eighteen years ago) link
― vahid (vahid), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:12 (eighteen years ago) link
nice to meet you, IOI. what's your real name?
― the people are such untight s wads (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:12 (eighteen years ago) link
Um, Matos thought Dave Q was saying Trevor Horn produced Judas Priest. And you didn't get that Dave Q was trying to be difficult and eclectic.
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:14 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost: that's pretty much the definition of a troll, yes.
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― the people are such untight s wads (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:17 (eighteen years ago) link
oh Schoenburg is so big, he's been to all the different forms, his opus nos. coincide with years of human non-developement (eg op. 42 piano/orch, one of my faves) -- is Kol Nidre a sreious devotional work ? am i too young to see the stench sarcasm humer of 'ode to Napoleon' ? the violin trio still grows, a concession to webern-esque instrumentation on schoenburg scale -- i still love the five orhestral pieces by s. -- those pieces between 1900 and 1920, gorgeous
webern will never know -- friendly fire? collateral casualty ? if Moses and Aaron had been completed it would have out-scandalised rite- of-spring surely
-- George Gosset (ggosse...), June 8th, 2002 6:00 PM.
pretty good, not quite dave q material but still... maybe on the zappa thread they go at it?
― vahid (vahid), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:19 (eighteen years ago) link
The mystery is what the hell this has to do with Yes and why it was thrown in for no apparent reason. This is obviously why you were confused. Bad writing.
Internet anonymity is pretty much not the definition of "troll". Handles are pretty common far and wide by non-Trolls.
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― vahid (vahid), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― the people are such untight s wads (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:23 (eighteen years ago) link
Yeah, that's a pretty specific audience he's obviously writing for. Probably not the Seattle Weekly, I'd guess. Which brings me back to my question: WHO was Dave Q. writing for? By all accounts, it would seem the general public. And I'm sure the general public read about half of that article and turned the page or laughed at how stupid it was. Overall, a totally useless waste of space that accomplished nothing other than perhaps tickling the ribs of a very small minority of people.
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:25 (eighteen years ago) link
― the people are such untight s wads (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:28 (eighteen years ago) link
Vahid makes you sound like a weird foriegn dweeb who macs out on all the girls in the computer lab who are repulsed by you and your bad breath and it also makes you sound like you are a driver for your daddy's limo service in order to pay the bills for your SUNY school education.
There, I have just swapped you one reference.
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:29 (eighteen years ago) link
Oh wait, maybe you missed the first sentence:"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants."
― Inside Outside In, Sunday, 18 December 2005 02:30 (eighteen years ago) link