Yes piece by Dave Q

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!

xpost: Trevor Horn is one of the lynchpins of the entire article. Corey Hart has a walk-on appearance as a point of comparison.

"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.

xpost: wowie, I made a typo!

Yeah, that would. I guess you're not very creative.

What was your point?

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.

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!

haha I read it fine; I just allowed that my interpretation might be off.

nice to meet you, IOI. what's your real name?

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.

xpost: that's pretty much the definition of a troll, yes.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."