|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: zepfloyeszepfloyes Date: Nov 29, 2007 18:38
On Nov 29, 8:30 pm, poisoned rose
eliteintelligentsiamonthly.com> wrote:> . Somewhat ranked, somewhat not.
Why do you always do a half-arsed job? Why not go all out?
|
| |
|
| | 34 Comments |
|
|
Author: zepfloyeszepfloyes Date: Nov 29, 2007 18:44
On Nov 29, 8:42 pm, poisoned rose
eliteintelligentsiamonthly.com> wrote:>>> . Somewhat ranked, somewhat not.
>
>> Why do you always do a half-arsed job? Why not go all out?
>
> Because there's no "precise" method for ranking bands -- maybe
> that's something else you'll learn after you have a few more years
> of listening experience behind you.
There is a method based on most albums of the highest quality. It is
very subjective. But yes, it would be a perfect method. But ofcourse
it is not a easy job. This means, you have to listen to EACH AND EVERY
ALBUM OF EVERY FREAKING band out there.
|
| |
|
| | 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: zepfloyeszepfloyes Date: Nov 29, 2007 20:40
On Nov 29, 8:52 pm, poisoned rose
eliteintelligentsiamonthly.com> wrote:>>>> Why do you always do a half-arsed job? Why not go all out?
>
>>> Because there's no "precise" method for ranking bands -- maybe
>>> that's something else you'll learn after you have a few more years
>>> of listening experience behind you.
>
>> There is a method based on most albums of the highest quality. It is
>> very subjective. But yes, it would be a perfect method.
>
> No, it would not be. Maybe this is something you'll learn after you
> have a few more years of listening experience behind you.
>
> And I already briefly told you what's illogical about your
> "counting" method in another thread.
>
>> But of course
>> it is not a easy job. This means, you have to listen to EACH AND EVERY ...
|
| Show full article (1.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Caffe MochaCaffe Mocha Date: Nov 30, 2007 06:56
On Nov 29, 11:40 pm, zepflo...@ yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 29, 8:52 pm, poisoned rose
>
>
>
>
>
> eliteintelligentsiamonthly.com> wrote:>>>>> Why do you always do a half-arsed job? Why not go all out?
>
>>>> Because there's no "precise" method for ranking bands -- maybe
>>>> that's something else you'll learn after you have a few more years
>>>> of listening experience behind you.
>
>>> There is a method based on most albums of the highest quality. It is
>>> very subjective. But yes, it would be a perfect method.
>
>> No, it would not be. Maybe this is something you'll learn after you
>> have a few more years of listening experience behind you. ...
|
| Show full article (1.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RichLRichL Date: Nov 30, 2007 08:06
> Still haven't figured out the definition of "troll" yet, eh, Raj?
I think he's still working on "frontman".
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tracy_BarberTracy_Barber Date: Nov 30, 2007 19:52
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:44:27 -0800 (PST), zepfloyes@ yahoo.com wrote:
>On Nov 29, 8:42 pm, poisoned rose
> eliteintelligentsiamonthly.com> wrote:>>>> . Somewhat ranked, somewhat not.
>>
>>> Why do you always do a half-arsed job? Why not go all out?
>>
>> Because there's no "precise" method for ranking bands -- maybe
>> that's something else you'll learn after you have a few more years
>> of listening experience behind you.
>
>There is a method based on most albums of the highest quality. It is
>very subjective. But yes, it would be a perfect method. But ofcourse
>it is not a easy job. This means, you have to listen to EACH AND EVERY
>ALBUM OF EVERY FREAKING band out there.
Getting there... at least before 1980 anyways...
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tracy_BarberTracy_Barber Date: Nov 30, 2007 19:53
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:40:00 -0800 (PST), zepfloyes@ yahoo.com wrote:
>On Nov 29, 8:52 pm, poisoned rose
> eliteintelligentsiamonthly.com> wrote:>>>>> Why do you always do a half-arsed job? Why not go all out?
>>
>>>> Because...
|
| Show full article (1.31Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tracy_BarberTracy_Barber Date: Nov 30, 2007 19:54
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:06:22 GMT, "RichL" yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Still haven't figured out the definition of "troll" yet, eh, Raj?
>
>I think he's still working on "frontman".
Isn't he a back door man?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Tracy_BarberTracy_Barber Date: Dec 1, 2007 23:47
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 04:50:55 GMT, poisoned rose
eliteintelligentsiamonthly.com> wrote:
>>>There is a method based on most albums of the highest quality. It is
>>>very subjective. But yes, it would be a perfect method. But ofcourse
>>>it is not a easy job. This means, you have to listen to EACH AND EVERY
>>>ALBUM OF EVERY FREAKING band out there.
>>
>> Getting there... at least before 1980 anyways...
>
>I don't know about other decades but, at this point, I'm convinced
>that I own (or at least have heard) just about every '80s album I'll
>ever possibly want. I could name about 25 '80s albums which are
>still on my "shopping list" but after that, I am pretty much DONE.
>Averages out to about 80 albums per year.
Raja-Mahn is too new in this music game. He longs for the "old days"
but hasn't lived them, like many of us have. He doesn't fit! :^)
|
| Show full article (1.11Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jeff BlanksJeff Blanks Date: Dec 17, 2007 22:02
poisoned rose eliteintelligentsiamonthly.com> wrote:
> Jeff Blanks mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> You'd think that
>> someone out there could've detected a niche market for prog-rock back
>> then, but for some reason it didn't happen until the '90s. But even
>> people not on top of the heap would apparently leave some money on the
>> table than lose their *cred*.
>
> Maybe you should ask yourself WHY there's so little "cred" in
> pursuing prog-rock today,
Because it's socially incorrect. (Though I'll admit it's become more
kosher in recent years.)
> and consider an explanation which doesn't
> involve discrediting anyone with a differing perspective.
In case you're wondering, I'm not talking about *you*. Anyone with real
power, OTOH, is fair game.
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
|
|
