View Full Version : Snapcase- do you actually listen to music?

Lazarus and the Gimp
08-05-2002, 21:42:06
I'm starting to wonder. At times it sounds like you just sneak a look at "Rough guide to Rock".

08-05-2002, 22:48:20
Er, why do I give that impression exactly? :nervous:

*hides books under chair, closes paralel website*

08-05-2002, 22:49:55
But the answer is, yes, I probably litsen actively to music at least a couple of hours a week, and passively a lot more than that. I'm not really an in-depth litsener, except with a few tracks here and there.

08-05-2002, 23:47:35
What Snapcase doesn't know about music, isn't worth knowing!

08-05-2002, 23:54:32
Right on!

Provost Harrison
09-05-2002, 13:34:59
What Snapcase doesn't know about music, is worth listening to :D

09-05-2002, 13:42:16
Indeed, his musical tastes are rank. But still, he knows a lot.

09-05-2002, 13:50:42
No, he just bullshits well. :D

09-05-2002, 13:55:30
Originally posted by Snapcase
I'm not really an in-depth litsener, except with a few tracks here and there.

You're not in-depth, and yet you analyze bands styles down to the atomic level, breaking them in to the smallest sub-sub-genres?

09-05-2002, 13:59:16
But he doesn’t analyze them, he just looks them up.

09-05-2002, 14:30:00
He learnt all the lyrics he knows from Smash Hits :D

09-05-2002, 16:22:04
I litsen to music shallowly and apply shallow criteria to assess it. Where's the contradiction?

09-05-2002, 16:32:44
I do hope the parallel website wasn’t AllMusic.

Lazarus and the Gimp
09-05-2002, 16:49:44
There's been a few comments you've made that got me wondering. There was the one where you said "Despite occasional flashes of brilliance, That Petrol Emotion never had a chart hit". There was something about that that made me go "Eh?".

The latest one is your comment about The Pixes "loud/quiet aesthetic". That's something that only rock writers mention, and have only mentioned since about 1995 when it first started cropping up. I'd argue that they had no such "aesthetic"- certainly no more so than other bands at the time.

09-05-2002, 16:52:36
Dynamic is a more appropriate word to use. Quiet-loud dynamic; quiet, loud, dynamic.

09-05-2002, 17:33:53
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
There's been a few comments you've made that got me wondering. There was the one where you said "Despite occasional flashes of brilliance, That Petrol Emotion never had a chart hit". There was something about that that made me go "Eh?".

Me trying to sound like a music writer, not me copying straight from a music writer. Other than on Allmusic, I've never seen anything written about That Petrol Emotion.

The latest one is your comment about The Pixes "loud/quiet aesthetic". That's something that only rock writers mention, and have only mentioned since about 1995 when it first started cropping up. I'd argue that they had no such "aesthetic"- certainly no more so than other bands at the time.

This one I'm guilty as charged for. I don't particularly like the "quiet, creepy verse, OOT loud chorus" sound, and I've seen written somewhere (or rather saw a TV show where it was claimed) that the Pixies invented it. And no, it's not based on personal experience of the late-eighties American underground scene (of which I'm largely ignorant).

What I don't get is why Music is the one subject where you're assumed to have first-hand experiece of everything you talk about. I can discuss british parliamentary procedure without ever having glanced at a Commons protocol, I can discuss criminal justice without ever having seen jail nor courtroom, I can espouse my opinion of Drug Prohibition without ever having taken any hard drugs or having personally examined the statistics that underly any study.

Yet with music I'm expected to not only litsen to any music that others before me have placed in genres or whatever and personally determine whether I accept their judgement or not. Whatmore, I'm supposed to litsen to it all properly, learn to appreciate its finer points, litsen to it over and over again. I'm supposed to ignore any research anyone else has made and start from the very beginning again. I'm supposed to only litsen to music recommended to me by friends, reading reviews is dirty and wrong. And lists, lists are for idiots, and people who use them to find music that's aikin to what they like are shallow and stupid. There are apparently no authorities allowed either, even if you largely agree with what a writer says you have to ignore it all and purposefully buy stuff he wouldn't so you can boast how original and self-invented you are.

I think it's all bullshit. Of course I form my own opinions, but I think everyone whether they admit it or not are influenced by other people to a large extent. Whatever you say, the social context you litsen to music in is important, genres do spawn bands, contemporary tastes does influence people. I'm not a blind, feckless stooge but I'm wise enough to acknowledge that without music journalism I'd still be stuck litsening to Queen like I was two years ago.

09-05-2002, 17:34:49
Originally posted by Sean
I do hope the parallel website wasn’t AllMusic.

Of course it was. I like Allmusic. I've found dozens of brilliant CDs through it.

09-05-2002, 18:19:35
Their Squarepusher discography (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=B128e4j371wat) is hardly impressive. The full list (http://www.squarepusher.com/discog.html) (apart from that Untitled single).

Oh, and because music is art, not politics: I expect you to have experience of music because it is accessible. In the same way that I would expect you to read my posts before replying to them, I expect you to listen to an artist before spouting off about them. Art is personal, and if you are borrowing opinions until you get round to listening to something then you aren’t doing yourself any favours.

09-05-2002, 19:13:11
Allmusic is more complete than every other non-artist-specific site on the net. Plus it's actually got decent reviews.

I think there's a difference between borrowing emotive opinions (I like this/I don't like this) and borrowing intellectual opinions (An underlying trend in all Rocksteady music is the highly syncopated melodic baseline, bla bla bla). The former may be taste, but the latter is knowledge. It might be false knowledge, but it's something produced after someone has researched records I may or may not be able to research at the moment.

I think your reasoning falters at that point- There's no way I can litsen to every R&B track produced from 1947-52 to discover where Rock 'n' Roll was born (say), but you can bet that someone has done so more than me and can speak more authoritatively than me on that subject. And I can refer to that "knowledge".

If I "borrow" emotive opinions at any point it's solely for the purpose of being able to know what to buy and in what order. I'd guesstimate that upwards of 70% of my record collection is music i'd never heard any part of before I bought it. This results in quite a few duds, but considering it's a blind approach It's remarkably efficient in getting me lots of good music when compared to approaches like "pick the best of the stuff you hear your friends play" (I'd be litsening to Green Day) or "pick only what you hear on the radio" (I'd be litsening to Oldies and Jock Rock).

Vincent Fandango
09-05-2002, 19:20:06
Originally posted by MikeH
No, he just bullshits well. :D :lol:

Lazarus and the Gimp
09-05-2002, 19:34:43
Most of the time I buy records I'm buying blind (deaf?) too. It's the only way to do it.

09-05-2002, 22:09:51
That's why Snappy and I aren't labeling our CDs try and let each other listne without predjudice.

Vincent Fandango
10-05-2002, 07:13:54
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Most of the time I buy records I'm buying blind (deaf?) too. It's the only way to do it. That's not true. The prejudices are in your brain as genres, so if you listen you X and you categorize it, you get trapped by your own prejudices.

Sometimes I buy albums I expect to be bad. For example: right now I'm trying to figure out what's the problem with Paul McCartney after 1970. According to some biographies he produced mainly crap. I bought some of his albums and try to find out what and why is something bad.

Another idea is to separate a band from the context, or the genre. I bought the Linkin Park album, ignored the set up (US male teenage wasteland) and listened to it several times.

Another good idea is to concentrate on the song, trying to find out, what makes a song good or bad in your ears. There are a few songs I really hate. Most of them are "obvious" songs, where every single detail is like I would have expected, so the deatils fit together in a kind of song with no subtle feelings or thoughts. The aritist takes the audience as a measure to create a highly consumerable musical soft drink.

Lazarus and the Gimp
10-05-2002, 23:03:09
I'm not prejudiced against any genre. Except Acid Jazz, of course.

Provost Harrison
14-05-2002, 13:07:00
Not even UK Garage Laz?

*End Is Forever*
14-05-2002, 14:49:29
I'm prejudiced against UK garage.

14-05-2002, 16:26:26
I’m not. Squarepusher did a fantastic piss-take of it with last year’s single My Red Hot Car.

Provost Harrison
14-05-2002, 19:03:06
Who things that Craig David should be put through a bacon slicer?

14-05-2002, 19:05:24
Obviously Squarepusher did.

Provost Harrison
14-05-2002, 19:07:09

Nah, just sandblast all his skin off and liberally throw salt over him :D

Lazarus and the Gimp
14-05-2002, 21:58:35
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Not even UK Garage Laz?

Nope. I liked "Fill me in".

Provost Harrison
14-05-2002, 22:09:48
I wish somebody would 'fill him in' :D

15-05-2002, 10:08:31
Craig David inspires people to violence. He'd be great at an armed forces concert as long as you had it immediately before a battle.

Provost Harrison
15-05-2002, 22:13:49
...and then place him amongst a group of the enemy, they wouldn't stand a chance (and nor would Craig David :D)

27-05-2002, 22:14:43
Don't you love us? Register.

29-06-2002, 09:55:17
SnapCase... Don't comment on music you've never listened to. Don't criticisize it, and don't worry about it.

Music is Art, and about the only Art that is something the vast majority of humans can appreciate. Good music effects us strongly, whether we are conscious of it or not.

Now, what's Good Music to me, may not be to you. But... unless we both listen to the same music and experience it, we will not know.

It's fine for you to parrot what others think of a song or CD in conversation, so long as you qualify it with: I've *heard* it said blah blah blah blah. But to use someone else's opinion on Music in place of your own... that isn't smart. What you think about Music (when you express your thoughts/feelings about it) tells people about you. By parroting someone else's thoughts and feelings, you are diluting your own expression of your personality.

Thanks for telling us though... now I finally understand why you would sound so plastic when you talk about music. Sometimes, there was fire and spirit in your talk about music... and other times, it was just marketeer and maniquin souls. Now I understand the difference.

Oh... and a tip from an almost hillibilly... if you have to *analyze* the music, something is very wrong. Music is for experiencing, not analyzing... you analyze noise (and how to reduce it). You experience Music.

29-06-2002, 13:23:08
Oooooh... DS vs Snapcase. This should be good.

The Bursar
30-06-2002, 20:51:26
Only if someone volunteers as a summariser for ever post.

Lazarus and the Gimp
30-06-2002, 21:55:12
Why shouldn't music be analysed? Part of the charm of hearing a record is trying to work out exactly what the lyricist is getting at, or what it's significance is historically or biographically. How is that some sort of fundamental error?

It's just like any other art in that respect. Or history, for that matter.

01-07-2002, 11:12:18
Music is a sequence of Noise that the makers or the listeners decide to call something special, a song. As a maker, all that should matter is you like to make/perform it. As a listener, all that should matter is you like to listen to and/or see it performed.

Of course, I'm a Joe Average Bum. I like what I like, and if I don't like it, I don't like it. Analyzing it isn't going to change my mind about it. You only analyze something to figure out how to make it better... which means, it's a waste to analyze it, unless the makers of the music are asking you how to change it so you will like it more, yes? Therefore: Analyzing music is on par with analyzing a poem... and just as worthless, to the majority of it's audience.

History is now Art?

01-07-2002, 11:23:30
You don't only analyse something to make it better. That's an engineering perspective. Most times you analyse something just to see why it works. If you are making your own music, which Snapcase does, it can be good to analyse other music to help you understand what works and what doesn't.

It's also good for describing music to other people. If you want new music you either hear it on the radio or tv or are told about it by a person, either IRL or in a written review. In that case you also need the vocabulary to describe music to get your meaning across.

01-07-2002, 11:26:39
DS, he said art or history. Pay attention :p.

01-07-2002, 11:29:49
More serious post: it depends on how much you analyse it. I like to listen to music that requires a bit of thought to appreciate, in the same way that I prefer to watch a film that makes me think rather than bombards me with eye candy.

01-07-2002, 11:33:48
BTW, Snapcase's response was here:


Lazarus and the Gimp
01-07-2002, 17:11:14
I think that's plain nonsense, DS. It's impossible to hear any Beatles tracks without some degree of contextualisation- the 60's, drugs, the Vietnam war etc. Even at a cursory level that's analysis, and it's done to enhance the listening experience. Not as some sort of dry academic exercise.

It's up to the listener to decide the degree of analysis they choose to pursue. To label it as wrong or worthless is rubbish. Again, the same is true of all art.

Take Turner's "Fighting Temeraire". Stripped of all analysis, it's a sunset over a couple of ships. Placed in context it's an incredibly poignant comment on passing glory and inevitable decline.

I can provide many, many more examples. How many would you need?

02-07-2002, 13:40:34
Oh fuck, my reply got deleted.

Anyway, the gist: DARkSTa_RR, why the fucking tone? Read the other threads surrounding this one, try to see how people argue on these boards before adopting a tone of condecending patronisation. I don't plagiarise feelings. You know this, honestly. Yes you do. And yet you pursue the worst kind of sub-flame insults, for no apparent reason whatsoever. I'm sure this works on your usual set of boards, where you're some sort of know-all master, but please; we have a chummy atmosphere here, and don't want the likes of you and DialecticMaterialist to come here and ruin it with bitterness and self-righteous nonsense.

Therefore I'll ask you to get lost, fuckwit.

Everyone, re: Analysis: I do it mostly for the two reasons Funko suggests, being able to write about it properly and being able to replicate it to a certain extent. I probably prefer my music to be more directly accessible than Laz or Sean, but yeah, a historical buildup can be vital as well.

02-07-2002, 19:33:45
Riiiiiiiiight. Is this how your spat with RC started, Snapcase? Tone it down a bit. Darkstar is nothing like you are implying ... he just likes a good debate and will enter into one with whoever responds. If what you read from him was something that you considered a flame, then you've obviously just taken off your rose-tinted spectacles.

As someone once said ...

But coool it.

02-07-2002, 21:26:26
It's not a flame, it's just immensely condescending. Note how he talks to people as if they were little children and he was the admonshing authority figure. You don't debate like that unless you're a major-grade fucking arsehole, as far as I'm concerned.

Lazarus and the Gimp
02-07-2002, 21:44:50
Noisy- Darkstar might well like a good debate, but he won't get a good debate if he starts by taking a pop at someone. Starting off by going for the jugular has it's place- I've been known to do so myself- but it's place is when you're trying to pick a fight.

If he wants to pick a fight, then I've no objection. If it's dressed up as debate then he needs to be gently put straight on how to interact with people.

03-07-2002, 06:55:03
If you have to analyze it to get it, it ain't Art... it's a Political Statement. You know, Snapcase is throwing his own shit into the air, catching it in his mouth, and eating it, at the Poly entrance. Is that Art, or a Political Statement? Obviously, a PS.

Now, if you are *making* your own music, have fun. Figure out what bits you like in songs. That's fine. But then, you are directly involved with the music making, aren't you? At least, your own. ;-)

There are many reasons for Snappy to regurgitate other people's feelings and thoughts about music as if they were his own... There is: Talking and Knowing Music makes him *cool* to people, and he wants to keep looking that way, so he'll just dump them this info he read from elsewhere. For facts, of course, that is fine. But for Art, this is the same thing as reciting a theatre critic's opinions as your own... And on the same level. Plagerism, to begin with. And how would you know that's what you would think about it. Think about that.

Now... if Snappy gets paid to review music, there's a motivation. Keep his job/position. Then, he's either overworked (as in too much work for current real life situation), or if not that, just doesn't really give a shit. Is that it, Snaps? You write for a student paper, so you don't give paid? That would be understandable. A student has many things claiming their time. And if you don't get paid, well... the paper is getting what it pays you for. Plagerised reviews of other people's thoughts, opinions, and work.

Humm... what else is there? I'm probably missing something. Obviously Snaps thinks it's perfectly fine to present another person's most intimate feelings, thoughts, opinions, and work about something as if they were his own.

I see little to debate. Snap's just posing, and doesn't like it being pointed out. That's how that comes across. Snaps know it, or he wouldn't be screaming shit out of his keyboard over it. He's presenting another's thoughts/feelings/connections to music as his own thought/work/opinion. That's poser, wannabee, and wastrel stuff.

So, let's settle this: Snap, do you only present other people's opinions on music because you aren't interested in that kind of music but want to talk about it, because you haven't heard it and want to look cool/participate on that subject, or you've just been too busy to get around to listening to it and forming your own thoughts, opinions, and connections to it?

Now, if he wants to hold any credibility after stating he just quotes other people's works/thoughts/opinions on Music, he really should add the words 'I heard' or 'I read' when using someone's opinion, and not his own. Anyone that will steal another person's opinions, thoughts, and connections on music is just as liable to do so on any and all other subjects. Makes it hard to know whenever Snapcase is actually expressing any of his own thoughts or opinions, doesn't it?

It's a basic credibility issue... he's blown his at a minimal, if your a optimistic person, with anything he ever says relating to Music, and if you are cynical, with anything at all. Lesson for you, Snaps... if you aren't going to add the 'I heard' bit when using another's person review and thoughts, at least with us, never, ever, ever admit again that you steal or quote other people's opinions as if they were your own.

And Snappy... the soul of a mannequin comes from the fact that when people express their opinions and views on Art, it gives you a glimsp of the that person. The more they express themselves, the better of an impression you have of them and their personality. Reading over your statements here and elsewhere about music... it was like you were made of plastic. Not enough real Snap in them is what I presume now.

I'll go back to my normal haunts now. I originally had just popped into this thread because I saw Laz replying here... and was just so startled by Snap's statement, I thought I'd point out to him that when he didn't present his thoughts and opinions on something and instead uses someone elses, it gave the readers the impression he has a plastic soul. The fact that he's gone into Poser rage says so, so much about him...

Lazarus and the Gimp
03-07-2002, 09:37:02
Let's start at the top. Who said you have to analyse it to get anything? As I said, it's up to the listener/viewer to decide the depth of their analysis, At every level there are experiences to be gained, and the art in question can have different meanings depending on the viewer. This can be a simple glance at a picture, or hearing a snippet of song, or a detailed study of the artist's history and influences.

Again, to suggest that the presence of hidden depths rules out a piece of work as art is laughable. Again, to suggest that it's wrong or pointless to analyse art is rubbish.

Let's use another example- Dadd's "The Fairy Feller". At a simple viewing it's a fine if rather odd piece of Victorian mythical art, with a man apparently chopping big hazelnuts with an axe. Viewed in the context of Dadd's insanity and life, it suggests that the nuts represent severed fairy heads and that the artist was trying to make some sense of the impulses that caused him to murder his father. It does not cease to be art because of that. It has artistic appeal at every level, and can satisfy both the casual viewer and the arty uber-geek.

I know it's a cheap shot to drag Nazi comparisons to each and every debate, but you're practically regurgitating the Nazi manifesto on "Decadent Art". It was those sentiments that shut down the Bauhaus, destroyed Berlin as a major artistic centre and replaced it with the chocolate box sentimentality and soft porn of Nazi-approved art- honest and simple pretty pictures that have no dangerous and subversive hidden meanings. Put simply- if they felt they didn't understand it, they labelled it as "not art" or "decadent", hence the banning of modernism and jazz.

That's missing the point, however. Art is a subjective pleasure, and there are no "rights" or "wrongs" in interpretation. We analyse it, or view it under new conditions and share our opinions, and in doing so can discover new insights and new pleasures in it. It's not some sort of error or crime to do so, no more than an artist is wrong to include symbolism in art. If you have a problem with that, don't try looking too hard at Holbien's "The Ambassadors" because it's a minefield of symbolism- even 400 years on we're still discovering new interpretations and hidden messages. It does not cease to be art because of that.

Anyway, that's the arty stuff out of the way. On a seperate point, I'm none too pleased about a month-dead thread being lifted out of context so that you can use it as a springboard to take a pop at Snapcase. This thread formed a small part of a month-long exchange of banter between myself and Snapcase that went over many threads and was a case of me poking fun at him. That's entirely normal between us and I expect him to take the piss out of me in return. I like Snapcase- he's every bit as passionate on music as I am, even if we frequently howl with derision at each other's opinions. I label him as a self-conscious iconoclast while he calls me a misery-seeking old git. However I also think he's a good writer on the subject, and considering I used to be a freelance music critic I'd consider that I've got some experience in that field.

As far as I'm concerned anything goes in music debates between insanely committed music fans. We'll happily sling abuse at each other on threads about the Archies. If you want to join in then that's fine with me. However, if you just want to pop in to dress up a barrage of bitchiness in a fatuous and ill-informed tissue of artistic comment and hope that we're gullible enough to accept this as something even vaguely approaching debate then you can forget it. You can take your sneering somewhere else. Now I hope that you've exhausted all the potential out of the fact that I queried Snapcase's passing comments on a couple of bands out of the hundreds we've talked about, because I think your comments on him are unjustified- particularly bringing up plagiarism.

03-07-2002, 09:43:12
Darkstar, could you start attaching an Executive Summary to your posts?

03-07-2002, 09:45:54
I agree with Laz's summary of Snapcase.

03-07-2002, 09:48:02
I wonder how many other people started replyign to Darkstar’s post, started browsing around in another window, saw Laz’s post, though ‘fuck it, I won’t top that’ and closed the window. Let’s see if Snapcase does similar.

03-07-2002, 09:50:00
I see you're still evading the question. Good on yer. Since anyone who knows me even in the slightest knows that the allegations you're attempting to heap on me to cover up your own inadequacies in social behaviour are plain ridiculous, why do you persist? What's the point? You've just written a fucking eleven-paragraph diatribe reiterating one, single issue, that I apparently plagiarise the feelings of others openly and thus have none of my own. Even you must realise quite how ridiculous this allegation is. Seriously. Think about it. It's not just heavily insulting to me, a person who lives for his music with absolutely no financial gain (that one was preposterous too... :rolleyes: ), but to everyone who regularly talks about music with me. Please.

(Plus, I reiterate, read the surrounding threads where the issue is explored more fully. Or rather, don't, get lost, I don't like you.)

03-07-2002, 09:51:10
Originally posted by Sean
I wonder how many other people started replyign to Darkstar’s post, started browsing around in another window, saw Laz’s post, though ‘fuck it, I won’t top that’ and closed the window. Let’s see if Snapcase does similar.

Damn, too late, I missed it!

03-07-2002, 09:51:58
Can we get back to taking the piss out of Snapcase's music taste now?

03-07-2002, 09:53:59
Back to reality…

03-07-2002, 09:54:31
Wait until my Festival Diary feature comes along. You'll be able to take the piss out of my opinions about music, drugs, other people... Lots of stuff.

03-07-2002, 09:58:35
Excellent! :beer:

03-07-2002, 12:36:51
I'm going to do one for glastonbury too - started today, try and send it in tomorrow...

04-07-2002, 20:55:55
Another example of background helping make an album. The Eels: Electro-shock Blues.

12-07-2002, 05:22:29
Surrounding threads? You cannot have surrounding threads. Anytime a thread is replied to, it moves to the top. Has new neighbors. Name this threads surrounding threads. They'll be different later. Like the next time someone else posts in this.

Hey, I rant now and then. It's just one of my disgusting habits. Right after posting.

However... how do you justify using another person's opinion on music as your own? This, I am curious about. When you know someone (best bud, partner, hated enemy, Handy Smurf), you have an idea about them and their tastes, so when they give an opinion about music (or games or books or whatever), you have a clue about their bent. Well, unless they are Snapcase using someone else's opinion. Then you won't have a clue how he can up with that opinion, or wonder whose brain he was using for that day, as it wasn't him and his taste. Yes?

12-07-2002, 22:39:46
Darkstar, every thread in this forum is a surrouding thread. That was the point.

13-07-2002, 07:26:22
My point is that every time someone responds, the surrounding threads *change*.

And it's still plagerism. Not a big deal, of course. Everyone cheats, lies, and steals these days, apparently. It's just the ethical thing to do. :D

I was thinking about that today, while waiting on a 4 hour backup process to complete at work, after catching up on the news... (And I thought about a bunch of other stuff, as well, Snaps. I just got reminded of this from the news, with the eroding right of Fair Use, the loss of ground for Protected Speech (First Amendment rights in the US), a few cases of plagerism (people 'borrowing' others opinions and presenting them as their own online reviews) being in the news)

While we *treat* these posts and threads as if they are verbal conversation, they are not. Verbal conversation is transitory. These are published writings... Each of our posts is a publishing, and as such, it has the legal responsibility of such. When Snaps publishes another's work under his moniker, that is legally plagerism, at least in the US and countries with similar intellectual and copyright laws (which is to say, almost all nations in the World Trade Organization. IIRC, it's a requirement to join the WTO to pass such laws and honor the other member countries laws on such).

Now, I know it's silly to expect anyone to get worked up on this (other then me ;) ), but it is indeed true. It puts the whole community at risk, if any of the authors or their legal representatives of the authored opinions/works ever want to do something about someone 'borrowing' their published work/opinions. It's stupid, and extreme, but extreme things do happen from time to time. I've seen to darn many extreme or against the odds things happen to rule out the possibility.

And I'm still waiting on Snaps to answer *why* he'd ever present someone else's opinions on Music (or anything else for that matter) as if they were his own. My presenting reasons/justifications might have been moronic (hey, what else is new?), but I haven't heard from the source why he would do so. I am very curious about this. Why would he, or for that matter, anyone, do so? Legitimate or otherwise?

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-07-2002, 09:03:25
Oh fuck off. If you're just going to show up in this forum once a week and take pops at people then you can post your opinions up your arse. This is forum where music fans talk about music- not a playground in your ongoing campaign to score points over other people.

You can bet your arse the surrounding threads change when you resurrect a month-dead thread out of context to take a childish and ill-informed potshot at someone. Well spotted, Sherlock. No, I can't complain. You were absolutely dead right about that. Award yourself a gold star and funny tingly feelings in special places.

Darkstar. Some many opinions. So little charm.

13-07-2002, 10:33:55
Darkstar, I know that the surrounding threads change. And if you look at pretty much any surrouding thread, EVEN NOW, you will see Snapcase’s opinion on music. As you are so fond of saying, this forum is a clique.

If you aren’t going to read the surrounding threads, how can you accuse him of stealing other people’s opinions? Aren’t you just pliagiarising our opinions :confused:?

13-07-2002, 10:53:18
Why? I am curious about why *he'd* do it.

Hell, I normally lurk Music forums. It's not like I am going to be a big contribitor. My taste are to ecliptic. But the concept of Snapcase, or for that matter, *anyone*, presenting someone else's opinion as their own on a purely opinion based matter, is something I'm curious about.

So what if I was an asshole about it. It's a legitimate question. I notice that noone is giving any reasons *why* someone would do something like that though. Anywhere. (Discounting my idiotic guesses, anyways) You are a serious *answer the fucking idiot to shut the bastard up* type Laz. Why do *you* think someone would do it? Why have you done it, if you have?

Snaps not answering tends to imply the answer has already been stated in the thread, he doesn't know himself, or he's too embarassed as to the why of it. Or... I'm just too dense to see the obvious answer. Have I missed an option? I'm sure I have. Which is why I'm *asking*.

I'm dense. I'm an idiot who suffers serious outbreaks of assholitist. So what? I'm not the only person here that happens to. Heck, I just don't suffer it as often as some here. (And I suffer it a lot more then others.)

The last time you told me to fuck off, Laz, was when you were mad, really mad at me, because I call your discriminating against people a prejudice extremely similar to other forms of discrimination that you hate so much. You just got down to yelling 'Go fuck yourself' because you couldn't answer me how hating someone for something they say/think is any different from what they do. Is this the same thing? Purely a knee-jerk reaction on your part defending an *emotional/irrational* feeling of yours? Snapcase is part of your friend circle, so it's ok for him, but it isn't ok for others? An attack on him is an attack on you?

I'm genuinely trying to understand. Don't feel like helping a clueless asshole? Well, *that* I can understand... why bother trying to get someone to agree with *you*. Why bother trying to teach someone something new? Let's all just stay in our own little bubbles and our own little circles and comfort zones. What harm can it do to anyone?

The neighboring thread bit is nothing but shit... so is this like ACOL then? If you aren't part of the 'innermost circle', go fuck yourself cause you like being 7337 and it's all a stupid circle jerk and don't go pointing it out to you? Or is there a legitimate reason for presenting someone else's opinions and analysis and thoughts as your own? What is it, filler until the coversation rolls around to something you have actual thoughts and opinons on? Is it verbal lemmings, the group following the current percieved leader as fast as they can to show they belong?

Toss a clueless person a real clue to ponder on. As both of you, Laz and Snapcase, seem to understand why'd someone would do such a thing. It's not from laziness, love, or money, according to what little Snacase has said here. So... what is it? Want to put me in my place, just tell me. Then I'l go 'Oh, how about that' or 'D'oh... man, I am really one of the dumbest of the dumb! I really should have realized/understood that! It's so obvious!'. But in either case, I'll move on and leave your private play group, since that is what you seem to be trying to do here.

13-07-2002, 11:01:46
Sean, am I using your opinions and presenting them as my own? If so, please show me. I hate hypocrisy, so I have to be full of it (isn't that how that generalisation goes?), as well as of other things.

I'm sure I owe Snapcase an apology, for my kneejerk idiot initial response to him And I'll give it to him, as soon as I think he might be back on speaking terms with me. (Well, if I remember it). But as Laz is still tilting with me, there is a hope that a clue will be tossed to this clueless one on why someone would do such a thing. Which is why I'm still posting on this thread.

13-07-2002, 11:28:27
Originally posted by Darkstar
Sean, am I using your opinions and presenting them as my own? If so, please show me. I hate hypocrisy, so I have to be full of it (isn't that how that generalisation goes?), as well as of other things.
What, you mean like this: ‘There are many reasons for Snappy to regurgitate other people's feelings and thoughts about music as if they were his own... ’?

If you looked closesly, real close up, you would see that he was using someone else’s description of their style.

I don’t have to read The Old Man and the Sea to tell you that it is a fable, I don’t have to watch Man on the Moon to tell you that it is about Andy Kaufman and is neither hagiography nor hatchet job, or that the pacing is uneven.

I do have to read The Old Man and the Sea to tell you that I despise Ernest Hemingway and his soul-less writing style, his way of making a story about the honour in failure and the greatness that pride leads to so fucking boring.

so is this like ACOL then?
No, but I seem to remember you being very proud of being in a clique.

For the record, your first post was full of the eternal Darkstar Wisdom (generalisations that do not stand up to a moment’s scrutiny). Your second was an extremely brief description of music (and in this you claimed that music had no soul). Your third told everyone what art is and isn’t (in the face of hundreds of years of evidence) with an extremely condescending tone taken towards Snapcase, telling US why he had blown his credibility with US. Your fourth backed away from the condescending tone and claimed that you were just curious all along, even when categorizing Snapcase. Your fifth claims that Snapcase plaigarises…plagiarises what? Show us, damnit!

Then you claim that being an asshole does not deny you the right to a response on a non-issue.

13-07-2002, 11:59:10
If you looked closesly, real close up, you would see that he was using someone else’s description of their style.

That's it? If that's all of his 'borrowing', then, I guess the stick up my ass has grown to a grand Sequoya tree.

The bit about the clique is simple: I remember Laz picking on ACOL's cliquenish. It struck my humor to toss it back at him. Probably a bad memory on my part and my twisted humor interacting on that.

I still don't agree the question of why'd he'd have done such is a non issue... If it was, then noone other then myself would have responded.

Snapcase said what he said. I didn't understand what he said as you did. It took you, Sean, answering me, just now, to get me to understand what you, Laz, and Snapcase understood from that. There was no gathering it from context nor from 'surrounding' threads that yeilded that specific meaning to me, a lurker of this forum. I took Snapcase at his literal words. Surprise surprise. Someone believing someone else. It does happen.

I've never met Snapcase face to face. I have only his own words to go by. If he states he uses other people's opinions in place of his own, I have no reason to doubt him. I really am that gullible. I trust people until they've given me a reason not to (that reason my be rational, or it may be irrational, but in general, I do start off trusting people to be truthful, and unfortunately for me, generally literal).

I was curious why. But you have answered me, and I thank you, Sean. For explaining the Obvious to me, and giving me a Clue. Thanks.

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-07-2002, 14:22:27
Let me put you straight on a few things, Darkstar. I have never told you to fuck off before. In the FFZ thread where you took an almighty pop at me concerning racism I was the very model of decorum. In fact, I mentioned at the time that I was being extraordinarily polite. It's probably still there in the archives if you wish to refresh your memory, or anyone else's. This is a first.

Next off- cliques? Bollocks. This is a music forum for anyone to talk about music. It's open to all and we'll all join in. Use it as a springboard to rub someone's nose in it and the response is likely to be different. There is no clique here. We've told you enough times that you're taking this thread out of context, but if you're too stubborn to pay any attention to that then expect to be told again in more direct terms. To start talking about cliques because of that is a joke.

If I thought, for one moment, that you were raising a genuine query then I might just answer it. However I really don't get that impression at all. It just strikes me as a nasty little dig at someone with a half-hearted attempt to dress it up as debate. That's why I'm not going to dignify it with an answer.