Essentially though, I've just always seen incidental music and sound effects in space as more or less the same thing; Additional sounds to add context to the story. Total silence makes it look flat.
OTOH, I am pleased that the makers have worked out a decent way of portraying space without resorting to something that - I agree - is a cliche.
I just got the feeling that 2.4 (and to a lesser extent 2.2) was more concerned with features than rigid stability. The VM was just one of the more extreme aspects of this.
The question was "what qualities appeal to people", not "what is her profession."
But the question completely misses the point. She doesn't need any quanitifiable musical talent. She simply needs to entertain.
If there's something inventive & vibrant there, I'll give it a chance and probably like it. If it's crap, I do what I can to avoid it, no matter how popular it is.
But that's simply because you want something inventive and vibrant. Your tastes are different from those of the majority. Nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, many people approve.
Here's the thing - Musicians and music purists believe they have taste and experience, because they have studied music, and they know what makes music good and bad. They don't though. They only know what makes that sort of music (real music) good and bad. Mainstream commercial pop music is a totally different product - Primarily it's a product for entertainment rather than a means of artisitic expression. Criticising it in terms of artistic talent makes as much sense as criticising a music video for having a predictable plot and no dialogue.
America's "wholesome little sweetheart" is nothing but a Stalinist! Argggh!
Yep. That's what I meant with my comment, "Apart from her well publicised efforts to reduice crime and terrorism". I expected someone to pick up ion that sooner.
And that is? You haven't mentioned any musical qualities in your post at all...
She sings sogs that a lot of people enjoy listening to.
When I studied Arisotelian logic, that was called "Nose Counting" and is a logical falicy, simply because serveral (uneducated) people aggree, doesn't make something true. (or untrue)
We can deduce from the large number of sales, that lots of people enjoy her music. Therefore, the music must be enjoyable by a large number of people. Since enjoying music is the usual purpose of buying it, it is therefore succesful in its intended purpose.
Given that it's explicitely stated that the awards are prestigious, we can assume that those who make and those who accept nominations must have some degree of knowledge and experience of music.
Prove that that is the motive, until then, this is an ad hominem against those deriding her and fans.
It's merely speculation. However, I can see no logical reason to deride her fans.
Again, where do I say people 'need to be "informed"'. Au contraire, I simply take great pleasure in informing them. I treat it like a civic duty.:) No where does it say I have to be listened to. Though I do appreciate it in your case.:),/I>
it certainly seems important to you.
Surely! I mean, music degrees are a waste anyway, right? If the lowest common denominator is satisfied, what possible use could there be for anything more??
Well, no... But if the lowest comon denominator is satisifed, then there's no good reason to criticise. The existence of bad music does not prevent the existence of good music. You don't like it. Who cares. Lots of people do. I can appreciate that you may get offended if they play it in shops, but if people enjoy it on their iPods, then it's their choice.
You say you like her
I don't like her. Never said I did.:P
There's really no conflict between our two statements.
Nope. Fair enough. You seem to be quite reasonable.
I do get kind of irritatyed when people dictate what other people's tastes should be, even if they find those tastes simplistic and ininformed. I feel the same way about OS zealots and wine snobs. (Of course, I have been an OS zealot in the past. I saw the error of my ways.)
Not only that, but other people produce the music she sings to, and they use instruments! Some of the intruments are electronicm and some don't even need people to pay them!
But first you say 'None of the times I've been exposed to B.S. did she manage to sing in tune...', then you say 'Have you ever heard of "real time pitch correction"'. Don't they use it for Ms. Spears then?
So, people need to be "informed", so that they cease to enjoy the music they currently like? Why? They listen to music for enjoyment. If they enjoy it surely that's all there is too it.
The problem is, you're an elitist. You assume that if people look at something in a different way from you, they're wrong. They're not though. Just different.
What is it about Britney, I wonder, that brings out the 'Spears Apologists'?
Probably the aggression with which she's attacked. What is it that causes such hatred and loathing from musical elitists?
mean, even in pop music's 4/4 time, 120 bpm, verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus-fade world, Britney is uninspired packaged drek.
Your opinion. It's an opinion. These are somewhat subject to opinion.
What inspires such loyalty, to throw themselves on the grenade of musical credibility??
Credibility with those who dispise people for liking the wrong music isn't really what most people want.
I have come to the conclusion that the 'Proponents of Britney' a) are, musically, complete ignoramuses, b) are some sort of advance scout army to prepare us to toil in the salt mines for our new Spears OverLordette, or c) want in her pance
Or perhaps... They just enjoy the music, and don't analyse the music on artisitic grounds, just whether or not they like it. The fact that you do analyse music doesn't mean people who don't are wrong.
Re:Useability; A mouse is the wrong shape
on
3D Mouse
·
· Score: 1
Nope. But I refuse to allow myself to be a sheep and believe a performer is worth my time just because the rest of the herd buys the stuff.
And I refuse to believe she's rubbish just because the rest of the herd buys her stuff. It doesn't occur to people that it's possible to like music that isn't trying to be innovative and clever, and is just enjoyable to listen to.
It's mindless pap and is designed to sell to people who don't like to think too much about their music. Sorry to burst your bubble but the folks in the industry who make the marketing decisions will tell you the same thing.
Sounds good to me. I listen to music to relax. Not as a mental exercise.
I spend almost 80% of my music budget buying from artists I've never hear/heard of before. I've discovered a lot of very cool and wonderful music this way.
Me too. I've also discovered a lot of no talent idiots. I also buy music that I hear on commercial radio. I've discovered a lot of cool and wonderful music this way.
Slashdot Mirror
I try.
It's discouraging for them not to get any bites.
If I want advice on the internet, I'll ask someone who knows (such as the men I mentioned).
erm.. Like an expert in Kernel design and a businessman who completely failed to see the internet coming until after it became big...
Might I suggest Sir Tim Berners Lee, or Jeff Bezos would have been better examples.
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
fl, fi, fc and FL (number of planets capable of supporting life, planets with intelligent life etc. ) are all more or less guesses.
Fair enough.
Essentially though, I've just always seen incidental music and sound effects in space as more or less the same thing; Additional sounds to add context to the story. Total silence makes it look flat.
OTOH, I am pleased that the makers have worked out a decent way of portraying space without resorting to something that - I agree - is a cliche.
Yes, but the space sound effects are also for the audience. It's just non-musical incidental music to tell us that the Enterprise has whizzed by.
So, you don't like sound in space, but you're willing to accept that someone strums away on the banjo every time they turn on their stardrive?
Exatcly.
Hints for safe Slashdotting #1: Don't post a comment after a pint and a half of wine.
That some of those dumb Yeropeons think that patnets on business methods are a bad idea.
I wonder why they think this. Must be socialist anti-corporatism, if you ask me.
I just got the feeling that 2.4 (and to a lesser extent 2.2) was more concerned with features than rigid stability. The VM was just one of the more extreme aspects of this.
The question was "what qualities appeal to people", not "what is her profession."
But the question completely misses the point. She doesn't need any quanitifiable musical talent. She simply needs to entertain.
If there's something inventive & vibrant there, I'll give it a chance and probably like it. If it's crap, I do what I can to avoid it, no matter how popular it is.
But that's simply because you want something inventive and vibrant. Your tastes are different from those of the majority. Nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, many people approve.
Here's the thing - Musicians and music purists believe they have taste and experience, because they have studied music, and they know what makes music good and bad. They don't though. They only know what makes that sort of music (real music) good and bad. Mainstream commercial pop music is a totally different product - Primarily it's a product for entertainment rather than a means of artisitic expression. Criticising it in terms of artistic talent makes as much sense as criticising a music video for having a predictable plot and no dialogue.
America's "wholesome little sweetheart" is nothing but a Stalinist! Argggh!
Yep. That's what I meant with my comment, "Apart from her well publicised efforts to reduice crime and terrorism". I expected someone to pick up ion that sooner.
All that space budget, and they couldn't even afford lens hoods.
Yes. It was a typographical error. These things happen from time to time.
Espcially if 2.6 becomes an unstable piece of crap.
Didn't that happen with 2.4?
Congratulations. You have proved that shit is food if you're a fly. The fact that you can't eat it does not prevent it from being edible for a fly.
P.S I suspect that Hognoxious knows nothing about logic. I'd quite before I made myself look a complete idiot if I were you.
So... That would be insulting other peoples tastes then?
The idea is that you find another job that looks interesting, and then leave. Not the other way round.
And that is? You haven't mentioned any musical qualities in your post at all...
She sings sogs that a lot of people enjoy listening to.
When I studied Arisotelian logic, that was called "Nose Counting" and is a logical falicy, simply because serveral (uneducated) people aggree, doesn't make something true. (or untrue)
We can deduce from the large number of sales, that lots of people enjoy her music. Therefore, the music must be enjoyable by a large number of people. Since enjoying music is the usual purpose of buying it, it is therefore succesful in its intended purpose.
Given that it's explicitely stated that the awards are prestigious, we can assume that those who make and those who accept nominations must have some degree of knowledge and experience of music.
Prove that that is the motive, until then, this is an ad hominem against those deriding her and fans.
It's merely speculation. However, I can see no logical reason to deride her fans.
Again, where do I say people 'need to be "informed"'. Au contraire, I simply take great pleasure in informing them. I treat it like a civic duty. :) No where does it say I have to be listened to. Though I do appreciate it in your case. :),/I>
:P
it certainly seems important to you.
Surely! I mean, music degrees are a waste anyway, right? If the lowest common denominator is satisfied, what possible use could there be for anything more??
Well, no... But if the lowest comon denominator is satisifed, then there's no good reason to criticise. The existence of bad music does not prevent the existence of good music. You don't like it. Who cares. Lots of people do. I can appreciate that you may get offended if they play it in shops, but if people enjoy it on their iPods, then it's their choice.
You say you like her
I don't like her. Never said I did.
There's really no conflict between our two statements.
Nope. Fair enough. You seem to be quite reasonable.
I do get kind of irritatyed when people dictate what other people's tastes should be, even if they find those tastes simplistic and ininformed. I feel the same way about OS zealots and wine snobs. (Of course, I have been an OS zealot in the past. I saw the error of my ways.)
Not only that, but other people produce the music she sings to, and they use instruments! Some of the intruments are electronicm and some don't even need people to pay them!
But first you say 'None of the times I've been exposed to B.S. did she manage to sing in tune...', then you say 'Have you ever heard of "real time pitch correction"'. Don't they use it for Ms. Spears then?
Nope. Just uninformed
So, people need to be "informed", so that they cease to enjoy the music they currently like? Why? They listen to music for enjoyment. If they enjoy it surely that's all there is too it.
The problem is, you're an elitist. You assume that if people look at something in a different way from you, they're wrong. They're not though. Just different.
Why some people who don't enjoy it have to knock them I don't understand.
I have no idea. I do enjoy winding them up though;)
What is it about Britney, I wonder, that brings out the 'Spears Apologists'?
Probably the aggression with which she's attacked. What is it that causes such hatred and loathing from musical elitists?
mean, even in pop music's 4/4 time, 120 bpm, verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus-fade world, Britney is uninspired packaged drek.
Your opinion. It's an opinion. These are somewhat subject to opinion.
What inspires such loyalty, to throw themselves on the grenade of musical credibility??
Credibility with those who dispise people for liking the wrong music isn't really what most people want.
I have come to the conclusion that the 'Proponents of Britney' a) are, musically, complete ignoramuses, b) are some sort of advance scout army to prepare us to toil in the salt mines for our new Spears OverLordette, or c) want in her pance
Or perhaps... They just enjoy the music, and don't analyse the music on artisitic grounds, just whether or not they like it. The fact that you do analyse music doesn't mean people who don't are wrong.
You missed out the comma.
Nope. But I refuse to allow myself to be a sheep and believe a performer is worth my time just because the rest of the herd buys the stuff.
And I refuse to believe she's rubbish just because the rest of the herd buys her stuff. It doesn't occur to people that it's possible to like music that isn't trying to be innovative and clever, and is just enjoyable to listen to.
It's mindless pap and is designed to sell to people who don't like to think too much about their music. Sorry to burst your bubble but the folks in the industry who make the marketing decisions will tell you the same thing.
Sounds good to me. I listen to music to relax. Not as a mental exercise.
I spend almost 80% of my music budget buying from artists I've never hear/heard of before. I've discovered a lot of very cool and wonderful music this way.
Me too. I've also discovered a lot of no talent idiots. I also buy music that I hear on commercial radio. I've discovered a lot of cool and wonderful music this way.
So, let me get this right...
You don't like her music. Therefore anyone who does must be stupid and fall for the hype.
I suspect it's the other way round. You're simply following an anti-populist counterculture herd, and refuse to allow yourself to like her music.