Because, yeah, those computers don't even EXIST before the Shipping Fairy bamfs them into warehouses. The companies that designed them couldn't possibly have production samples or anything.
Good point. He certainly is the Arbiter of Musical Quality/for that show/. We'll leave the discussion as to whether or not that bad pop crap is "music" for another day.
But, saying "YOU SUCK, YOU TALENTLESS HACK!" and saying "You don't have the sort of stage manner and style we're looking for" are two ways of saying similar things: Namely, that the contestant in question is not going to win.
Guess which one a) makes "good TV" and b) makes me not watch it.
Fair enough. I was really put off by the commercials of the judges dogging on the contestants, and that aside, the style of music is REALLY not to my taste.
So maybe Cowell is Mr. Happy Huggy Friend to the contestants. I still don't like the way the contestants are treated. Just because "Amateur Night at the Apollo" is harsher does not make me like it any more.
Come on...they deliberately couch their 'criticism' to be demoralizing and insulting. It's an open audition, which is whittled down to.01% of the applicant pool, so no, I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of bad singing. I'd expect everybody there should be able to carry a tune, have a decent voice, and (since it's now de rigeur for pop music) be able to dance.
There is nothing that justifies the abuse and debasement those judges dish out. YOU might think it makes good TV (and, obviously, the producers agree with you), but I think it's disgusting. That is why I never watch the show.
Coping with criticism is one thing. Coping with a person whose job it is to insult you and tell you how worthless you are is something totally different.
I thought Tom Hanks' character was a prick in that movie, so my position has the advantage of being consistent.
As far as how non-gently the performers "deserve" to be treated, what do YOU propose? What would be appropriate "criticism" for somebody who has the audacity to actually try to sing on stage, and not be good enough to entertain you?
Then he and his cronies shouldn't have put them on national TV just to humiliate them. It's disgusting.
He's not a guidance counselor. It's not his place to be the Arbiter of Musical Quality. Considering the hacks he picked, that's a good thing. They might be marketable, and they might even be talented, but they are NOT great musicians.
Of course, part of me thinks that anybody who volunteers for that show deserves what they get, but the bigger part of me is really tired of the lack of human decency and compassion that we seem to think is oh-so-cool nowadays.
I'd much rather send all the non-fuckwits to Mars, and we can go ahead and take another crack at setting up a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
If you don't appreciate the distinction between the Kelvin scale and the Centigrade scale makes me absolutely certain that you know nothing about the subject at hand.
Did you read about how BBC wants to do this as a public service, not as a profit-seeking venture?
Your parallel just doesn't make much sense to me. Valve is in the PC game software market, which is utterly dominated by Wintel. BBC is in the content production and distribution market, which is not so dominated. Nor are the development costs for using an open codec anywhere near the cost for porting a game to a different platform.
However, I'll bet you a large sum that Real or somebody would make a sizable donation to BBC in order to underwrite this effort, and get some mindshare for themselves. And, if they're going to bear some of the costs, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
Bottom line: It's BBC's content. They will release it in whatever format is advantageous to their own goals, and that is just fine with me. I'll adapt.
I can totally see the straight line between Valve's commitment to non-Windows platforms and the BBC's choice of video format.
Oh wait, no I can't, because there isn't one.
Yes, Virginia, most video codecs are playable in "Unix" these days. And, if/when BBC releases their format choice, that format will be workable under Linux in about eight seconds.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like most non-Americans: Thinking that most Americans think bigger is better...
Can we leave the stupid stereotypes at the door, please?
Yeah, because most speedboats have roofs
What ARE you talking about?
Umm, because you can fit 10x as much music on an MP3 CD player? Am I missing something, or was that a really dumb question.
Because, yeah, those computers don't even EXIST before the Shipping Fairy bamfs them into warehouses. The companies that designed them couldn't possibly have production samples or anything.
Word. Damn the Man!
Good point. He certainly is the Arbiter of Musical Quality /for that show/. We'll leave the discussion as to whether or not that bad pop crap is "music" for another day.
But, saying "YOU SUCK, YOU TALENTLESS HACK!" and saying "You don't have the sort of stage manner and style we're looking for" are two ways of saying similar things: Namely, that the contestant in question is not going to win.
Guess which one a) makes "good TV" and b) makes me not watch it.
Fair enough. I was really put off by the commercials of the judges dogging on the contestants, and that aside, the style of music is REALLY not to my taste.
So maybe Cowell is Mr. Happy Huggy Friend to the contestants. I still don't like the way the contestants are treated. Just because "Amateur Night at the Apollo" is harsher does not make me like it any more.
And I am voting with my attention.
Fair enough. I know I'm splitting hairs. : )
Come on...they deliberately couch their 'criticism' to be demoralizing and insulting. It's an open audition, which is whittled down to .01% of the applicant pool, so no, I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of bad singing. I'd expect everybody there should be able to carry a tune, have a decent voice, and (since it's now de rigeur for pop music) be able to dance.
There is nothing that justifies the abuse and debasement those judges dish out. YOU might think it makes good TV (and, obviously, the producers agree with you), but I think it's disgusting. That is why I never watch the show.
Coping with criticism is one thing. Coping with a person whose job it is to insult you and tell you how worthless you are is something totally different.
I thought Tom Hanks' character was a prick in that movie, so my position has the advantage of being consistent.
As far as how non-gently the performers "deserve" to be treated, what do YOU propose? What would be appropriate "criticism" for somebody who has the audacity to actually try to sing on stage, and not be good enough to entertain you?
When did you graduate? I just got out in May.
I feel your pain. : )
NASA has good engineers. The bean counters just beat them with sticks and make them do bad engineering.
Then he and his cronies shouldn't have put them on national TV just to humiliate them. It's disgusting.
He's not a guidance counselor. It's not his place to be the Arbiter of Musical Quality. Considering the hacks he picked, that's a good thing. They might be marketable, and they might even be talented, but they are NOT great musicians.
Of course, part of me thinks that anybody who volunteers for that show deserves what they get, but the bigger part of me is really tired of the lack of human decency and compassion that we seem to think is oh-so-cool nowadays.
Screw that.
All NASA need do to justify their existence is point at the tax revenues from businesses that depend on satellite communications.
Then we can double their budget, shoot all the bureuacrats, and get to work colonizing the solar system.
I'd much rather send all the non-fuckwits to Mars, and we can go ahead and take another crack at setting up a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Yeah, I love watching people get humiliated. Maybe we should arrange for them to be urinated on as well.
Call me uptight, but that attitude is pretty sick. Too bad it's so popular.
Seems like a silly dichotomy, since "musician" is a sub-set of "artist".
Now if you want to differentiate a "recording artist" from a "musician", you might be on to something.
Dealing with graphite particles, eraser particles, and wood shavings in a closed, microgravity environment are all non-trivial problems.
So it's not as cut-and-dried as you would like to believe.
Shorting is un-American?! WTF? Rapacious capitalism is un-American. Buying on the margin is un-American. Securities fraud is un-American.
I know you're not advocating that point, but who the heck would take that absurd position? That's just NUTTY!
What the heck are you talking about?
What fantasies?
And what does a person's First Amendment protected public, political speech have to do with the commission of premeditated murder?
You're a loony.
How are his threats of undertaking legal action any different from the threats of legal action SCO is proposing against Linux users?
SCO started this fight. They don't get to cry when people start fighting fire with fire.
I wish it prevented everybody from becoming governor. Or a legislator.
Don't feed the troll, man. You were right. He was a dick.
If you don't appreciate the distinction between the Kelvin scale and the Centigrade scale makes me absolutely certain that you know nothing about the subject at hand.
Get back in your cave.
In this particular case, BBC could release it by carrier pigeon and I wouldn't care. I'd adapt.
Did you read about how BBC wants to do this as a public service, not as a profit-seeking venture?
Your parallel just doesn't make much sense to me. Valve is in the PC game software market, which is utterly dominated by Wintel. BBC is in the content production and distribution market, which is not so dominated. Nor are the development costs for using an open codec anywhere near the cost for porting a game to a different platform.
However, I'll bet you a large sum that Real or somebody would make a sizable donation to BBC in order to underwrite this effort, and get some mindshare for themselves. And, if they're going to bear some of the costs, I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
Bottom line: It's BBC's content. They will release it in whatever format is advantageous to their own goals, and that is just fine with me. I'll adapt.
I can totally see the straight line between Valve's commitment to non-Windows platforms and the BBC's choice of video format.
Oh wait, no I can't, because there isn't one.
Yes, Virginia, most video codecs are playable in "Unix" these days. And, if/when BBC releases their format choice, that format will be workable under Linux in about eight seconds.