Tnspieler1012

What rant? Reilly stated his opinion in one post. Nobody died, he wasn't militant, I have no idea what anyone on this page is talking about. Who is you, and how do you back up your assumption? (and don't pretend like I'm trying to start an argument. The whole point of human communication is to share ideas. We state our beliefs, and then back them up with reasons. It's not hate, it's civil human dialectic. ) You're obviously channeling some past experience with trolls, but I don't see how what you're saying here has anything to do with this thread. Who is getting worked up? Who is getting entertained? For the love of God, who are you talking to? (see above) I don't think you know what that word means. Haha, yeah. Those stupid idiots with their minds and their opinions. How dare they defend what they think. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go share my right opinion to the world. What irks me is how so often people look at a perfectly interesting, adult discussion of opposing ideas, and act like cities will start burning if they keep talking. You paint people who keep talking during a disagreement like they're malicious monsters, when neither party is, and no one is actually upset or offended. LISTEN WORLD: If someone disagrees with you on a matter, there's nothing wrong with asking 'Why do you believe that?' Or even, when you witness someone making an irrational judgment, demonstrate the irrationality of their thought in a calm, mature fashion. Dammit this is the internet, there are no fistfights here. If you're afraid of talking about your opinions. Grand! But don't complain when others do, or ask questions you about your opinions. No, you don't. You really don't. I've been here much longer than you, and know that 99% of the coldplay section is cheesy, cheery monotonous fandom. There is more to read about how great coldplay is on this forum than you could read in your lifetime. Where is the hate? You mean the extraordinarily rare voiced opinion that disagrees with yours? This hatred you see is a fiction. There literally is no argument going right now except for people disagreeing with your opinion that the world is going to the hell because of a contrary opinion that stopped being talked about 2 pages ago. I really don't think your use of 'you' actually refers to anyone. And there's not even a thumbwar going on. If so, please show me, because you seem pretty emotional about something invisible to me. Is that a serious questions? Why are you posting yours? That's why.

Which/what 'argument' are you referring to?

Just announced. Matthew Cooper 'Eluvium', is releasing a double album in May. Woooot! http://www.spin.com/articles/eluvium-nightmare-ending-double-disc-instrumental

Your username. Will you make love to me while we watch Nostalghia pls?

Hehe, yeah. What losers!

Not really. The catalysts were there, but the fuse fizzled out.

OPEN YOUR MOUTH WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEE

Doesn't quite answer my question. No doubt both of us have made similar exclamations in the past, but what do we mean when we say them? What makes a song good or bad in our heads? Sir, you've just stepped into the boggy mire of aesthetics which is anything but simple. The vast majority of critics will concede that no one experiences art in a vacuum, but nor is it completely random what we experience. Many artists create art with an intended response, and some artists are more successful at this than others. If my intention is to create a Mozart style concerto, but my end composition is just me sitting down on a piano, most would say I have failed. I'll sidestep this, because while I too have experienced some truly frustrating music articles, I think it's a very broad and crude generalization. See, you're dehumanizing 'music critics', but I'll let that go. You're kind of dismissing people's opinions outright, that the 'goodness' of the article has nothing to do with the opinion being stated (correct me if I misunderstood, I'm still hung up on 'good' and 'bad'). But I don't believe that two articles that make exact opposite claims about a piece of music ("The lyrics on Mylo Xyloto are the worst CM has ever written" - "The lyrics on Mylo Xyloto are the best CM has ever written") can be equally persuasive to the same reader. Of course, but that's no reason not to think or speak.

I don't really have the time or desire to give the reply this deserves, so I'll just do this. What do the words 'bad' and 'good' designate here? Premise: If A, then B. A - Why do you say music is subjective? B - When we make musical claims, do we usually appeal to facts? I'm not convinced this is relevant to the discussion. Please distinguish good writing from persuasiveness and sophistry. The author of the article clearer does not concur with your appeal to relativism. Why? Because he or she wrote an defense article. One based on the pretense that, if some of the claims are true, Coldplay is a lesser band. I don't think anyone denies that people have different opinions that others may choose to ignore, but that doesn't make them irrelevant.

So if I've seen Inglorious basterds, I'm not missing out on anything?

I really doubt the actual time involved in writing, recording, and producing adds up to 22 years. They basically broke up, lived their own lives, did side projects, picked up tennis, hiked Kilimanjaro, read Ulysses, and then when it was convenient for them, got together and played around. It's also pretty clear that Shields is chasing a certain ideal sound in his music that no one else quite aims for. I think it is a different, more refined animal than loveless, and I don't imagine that anyone expected or desired a stark change of genre.

Wow, he's like that obnoxious, aggressive, neglected 7 year old who no one every wanted to babysit. What a tool.

Reilly summed it up nicely. By quoting all 5 I was addressing the whole article and not fragments. Though I refrained from elaboration, I made my opinion pretty clear.

No, it won't.

This isn't worth comment. No one who actually takes a serious interest in music would pose this seriously. Honestly, there's nothing particularly insightful or deep about either of these, especially not Christmas lights which events boils down to various cliche's. From a poetic perspective, interesting descriptions/narratives are quite rare from Chris. More times than not he slips into mind-numbing platitudes (see Lost, LIT ii, fix you, up in flames, ETIAW etc.) The writer's just described the late bono syndrome, and this is actually a testament to the weakness of his recent songwriting. Which is to say, his lyrics (with some exception) lack uniqueness and actual substance or insight. With Lovers in Japan for instance, I'm not convinced that a great deal of thought went into them. They're just tacked on to go with the melody. You're free to attach your own spin because you're already aware of the unimportance of the original lyric choice. Not really worth comment. Not this either. 1. They Make Bland And Insipid Music For People Who Don’t Like Music Often, yeah.

bump. Reasons people.

Aguero with...wow.

Gerrard with a signature massive strike.

preferably one that makes sense.

Zabaleta narrowly avoids an embarrassing own goal on a back pass.

:thinking:

1-1. Vicious strike from Sturridge.

Weak defending. Still, between Sturridge and Suarez, I can see Liverpool putting in 1 or 2. They probably should've already.

How old are you? haha

Haven't seen it yet. Anyone want to describe why they particularly love Django?