Darth Id

Wow those are great comments.  I wonder why he was left out of the

CONVERSTION WITH THE MASTERS?!?!?

What's most astounding is that he takes great, funny snide remarks delivered with peerless spirit (otherwise known as great humor), such as "You're brave than I thought," and thinks it's "dumb humor" because he mistakes it for crass innuendo, due to the incessant proximity of his mind to the gutter.

On the other hand, the bit where Han is pushing on Leia's hindquarters as she grimaces and manipulates a giant rod, I do think was intentionally suggestive, albeit too subtle for a kid to ever wonder, "wait what's going on?"

TheBoost said:

 "The new EU (specifically The Clone Wars) doesn't seem to mesh to well with older EU continuity. We'll continue to lap up the product, but would like if you'd try a little harder on that count. Thanks."

Thanks, and wow.  That's one vague-ass petition demand.  That cartoon must have malfunctioned more than a few fanboy rationalizer processors.

Too long can't read.  Can someone give me the gist of this gobbledygook?

Saw this yesterday in NYC, and on balance thought it was very good.

Incidentally, I think now I'm somewhat less perplexed at the box set's inclusion of otherwise baffling full-length "culture documentaries" on fan films and cosplay.  I figure that these are intended as the anti-PvGL, in that they present a white-washed, one-sided, officially permissible look at the fervor and devotion that PvGL fleshes out in a more balanced way.  Considering how long this doc has been featured on the festival circuit, I figure Lucasfilm wanted to address the same profound principle of SW's "participatory" appeal, without airing the legitimate grievances regarding the SE revisionism and PT brand-raep.

Oh, and I love that they included Wesley Willis doing "Jar Jar Binks."  The song's best couplet: "You are a stupid bastard.  You are an evil bastard."

I'm going to guess: your nitpicking.

Really, get a gripe, Frink.

dark_jedi said:

LOL, there are a lot of people that are going to need some of these,

Why would I need this? There's not one thing worth masturbating to in this whole damn set!

I just heard about the built-in dictionary, and for the first time realized the Kindle had something to offer me, a prodigious subway-ride reader.

Not quite enough to buy one, though.

Bingowings said:

...

The image is from a television show which is therefore in all probability beneath your taste.

...

Fixed.

So is it supposed to be "DAAAAMMNN you got knocked the FUCK OUT!" or "DAAAMN Ms. Parker just don't know!" or "Huh?"

TV's Frink said:

Darth Id said:

TV's Frink said:

Inception is a modern day Citizen Kane.

 

Are you being, like, sarcastic, dude?

You tell me.

Wrong!  The correct answer, TV's Frink, is, "I don't even know anymore."

Your Simpsons-related avatar should be revoked.

TV's Frink said:

Inception is a modern day Citizen Kane.

Are you being, like, sarcastic, dude?

Endorse 100% xhonzi's above missive.

So basically what you're saying is that you have no taste or thought on your own, and no one should pay attention to what you have to say. Thanks, that's all I wanted to know.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Now I don't know whether you're expecting anyone here to buy that your day is really so damn busy that you literally have no time to "risk" spending some time on a potentially bad musical experience (that would still enhance your view, knowledgea and tastes), while constantly posting comments that take hardly less time to write than to click on a few of those links and give some stuff a shot

 

That's why I volunteered the bit about valuing forum chatting.  Also I stream radio while working/chatting, and I would have to interrupt it to put on youtube clips.  That's called an opportunity cost, and one that I'm not willing to expend.

- but one thing is certain, by openly take such a passive, "selective" approach to what you watch or listen to in the first place, you completely destroy your credibility as any sort of critic with an opinion from the get-go.

Passive and selective are diametrically opposed concepts, BTW.

Not to mention the whole story about "commenting on things you don't know about" - as soon as you find yourself at a place in a discussion where you don't have the "time", or interest, or are too lazy to look into someone's examples or arguments, the only step you can reasonably take is BOW OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.

I AM THE DISCUSSION!

You know, as an aside I really don't get most of the jpgs/gifs interjected as pictoral commentary by the regulars on this board.  I'm not being a "hater" and I certainly don't hide behind a purse.

You're changing your argument.  You said that free music must be worthless because it is given away for free.  That the time, energy, and passion put into free music is somehow less than commercial music.

But more importantly I also never changed my argument.  I said that price is a reliable signal of value--not perfect.  The placement of a piece of music as a free-for-all mp3 on an unrestricted website is, all else being equal, simply an indicator (with a pretty high degree of confidence) to me of the value I am likely to derive from it.  For someone else, who is into that kind of thing, it might be a badge of honor and a hallmark of worth.  But for me it's got the trappings of that with which I need not be bothered.

Might I be wrong?  Sure.  It might be great...but the likelihood of that doesn't even justify the expenditure of time to verify one way or the other.  Again, I started by saying that price colors the "perceived" value.  Perceptions are often wrong, but that doesn't mean we should abandon them.  [See, heuristics.]

If I played a show at the Mercury Lounge and you dug me, would the free CD's I give away be worthless to you?  By your logic, an album is only as good as it costs.  I guess I should be charging $100 for my CD's.  People would think it was better because they paid so much for it! :D

Given the premises you stated, in this situation I would have a far greater number of signals than price alone to predict the likely value of the CD.  If I had already seen you play and it was good, then I would have good reason to expect the CD to offer value, unless the production quality was so poor as to negate the potential value of the songs/performance (which, believe me, has happened many times).  Again, the price is not determinative of the value, but only indicative.  As you obviously point out, an item is the same regardless of its price.

I did the soundtrack to an upcoming Xbox Arcade game (not out for a long while).  I was paid, and I will also receive royalties.  Is this music somehow better than my usual stuff just because it's connected to a commercial release?

Now this is a very rich example for illustrative purposes.  Microsoft (or whatever) commissioned those pieces precisely to reap an expected value, based I assume on a portfolio that you let them hear (for free!) that they took as strong evidence that you could produce work of high value for a particular purpose.  Everybody who buys that game, in turn, pays a price that includes a component that goes to you, and based on the expectation that the game will have awesome music.  A very wide range of market signals will be integrated by each of those purchasers.  Even if they game were free, the developer name or score composer credit would serve as a good signal of value.  In any event, it might be better than your usual or worse.  It depends on you mental processes during production.

And you didn't answer my other question: if one of these artists were signed, would they suddenly have more merit?

Again, price is indicative, not determinative.

How can I possibly have a discussion with someone who refuses to look at the examples I've given, despite having a very strong opinion on the matter?

I don't know, yet here we are.

The most recent Prince album I own is Musicology (which, incidentally, he gave away with a purchase of tickets to his Musicology tour).

I would have loved to get his last two albums for free, but I would never, ever buy a newspaper.  So it looks like his move hurt UK fans in a position similar to mine, by actually INCREASING  the real cost to his fans willing to buy it, by forcing them to subscribe to some limey tabloid buttrag or import the record at a huge premium.  At the same time, I suspect it was a massively wasteful campaign, and that a huge fraction (majority?) of tabloid subscribers simply let the jewelcase-free, scratched up discs float around on the cradenza for a week, and them tossed them.  It's an absolutely perverse manner of media distribution.

But, I guess Prince is Prince (is the Artist Formerly Known as the Artist Formerly Known as Prince), so he can do whatever the fuck he wants.  Budding artists making difficult economic decisions do not have the same luxuries.

First off, you should note that this thread begins on pp. 79-80 of the SWonBlu thread, since those won't be the "last few pages" for long.

Second, in response to a remark you made there, I suspect that there is a great deal on which you and I would agree, aesthetically speaking.  However, there's inevitably a great deal more on which we would disagree.

And third, I still see no reason to click on any of your links.  I tend to hear new music in two ways: seeing a new band play with a band whom I have already paid for a ticket to see; or based on a recommendation from an established credible source (meaning, personal friend) who likens or relates it to a different band whose music I have already deemed worth buying. 

There is simply no rational basis upon which I will blind-click links to music based only on the advocacy of a random forum commenter.  The expected return on the investment of time just isn't there.  (I prefer to reap value from the thrust and parry of arguments and flame wars.)

You clearly participate in an entire community of hobbyists who mutually produce and consume music that is freely distributed.  You value this participation in an enormous number of ways, I'm sure.  I on the other hand am content to be a discriminating consumer of music, and I value the work of professionals.  If, some day, one of your compatriots has a chance to open up a gig at the Mercury Lounge for someone I go see, maybe I'll come to realize its great.  But without such reliable hallmarks of value (to me), I won't pursue what I'm virtually certain will be a waste of time.

TV's Frink said:

So...Star Wars on Blu-ray anyone?

 No thanks.

watch that youtube vid I posted

Pass.

I guess you're only into all this Pop Idol type crap then?

I don't know what that is.

But in any event, I doubt highly it bears any relation to music like of Montreal or Mars Volta, the two current bands I cited as having worthwhile production values.  Regarding the former, moreover, Kevin Barnes has done everything DIY-style in his basement (with the exception of the latest, uncommonly weak, record).  Production value doesn't mean necessarily expensive studio work, [Edit: It certainly isn't a matter of "software"!--Id.]but only something requiring exacting attention--and very unlikely to be given away for free.

And with respect to pricing as signal to the market, please refer to the work of economist Ludwig von Mises.

[/detour]

Of course it makes sense.

I've thrown away just about every free CD I've ever been handed.  Only listened to about half of them.  Giving it away diminishes the perceived value off the bat.  (Case in point: eiyosus has linked to an undoubted boundless universe of free music...that I am in no way whatsoever interested in accessing, because the price ($0) is a reliable signal of the likely value of the content (zilch).)

And besides, production value is important, and if the investment into it has been made, it has to be recouped. 

I agree that the age of the U2-type album-oriented megabands is coming to a close, but it doesn't fill me with exuberant expectation for some liberated future.  I fear that it will mean the end of the Album, which is something I cherish.  I think the most recent truly great albums, by of Montreal and Mars Volta, were back in 2008.  My own current-CD purchases have diminished spectacularly over the last few years, from something in the 30s in 2005 to, I think, 5 in 2010.  And this is not because I download.  I don't download. 

Some of the formerly great album bands have issued direct statements saying that it's just not worth it anymore, and many, many budding album bands have simply not sold enough copies of their debut for the label to float a sophomore effort.

Can this happen to movies, too?  I really wonder.

I have only quoted Star Wars lines in the right situation when the situation was right.

Print struck from what?

That would be sad if the archived, armageddon-proof version was struck from a rushed, sloppy internegative, in turn transferred from an abused, degraded interpositive.

And if it will be from the O-Neg...that will be a big 'a-ha!-it-does-exist.'

I am shocked--by this bureaucrat's speed of reply and attunement to the issue.

"In the near future," huh?  Does that mean they already got saddled with a SE version, and thanks to your notice will go back to the well?  Or does it mean that a film is typically "added to the registry" before a suitable print is actually procured?

Thank you.

Definitely not a smoking gun, but might deserve to be quoted in an endnote?

I think a big question that would have been raised if the SE had kept the line intact is: does Red Leader know that 'Father Skywalker' turned into the dreaded Darth Vader?  And if not, why not (and what would he have thought happened to his former friend)?  And if he DID know, might he not be suspicious of Luke, or maybe think fit to mention it?  ("'Skywalker!?'  Dude, bummer about the evil pops, bro.")

I think the proper route would have been to...not monkey with the damn movie in the first place.  But that's just me.

Since someone bumped this thread, I'll throw in my comments.

I read Secret History a few months ago and was enthralled.  It was so refreshing and exciting to read a book by someone who maintained objectivity and skepticism about this subject, while unfailingly demonstrating a deep abiding appreciation and passion for the subject matter.

A rare thing, in the 'EU,' as it were.

I was left with just one big question: what is the nature of the dialogue in the partially-restored Biggs-in-the-hangar scene, which refers to 'father Skywalker' in a way inconsistent with 'father Vader'?  Secret History mentions it in passing, without ever quoting the dialogue.  If it is really inconsistent, I think that may be the strongest single piece of evidence for the book's central thesis.

[Of course, I can't help inserting on tiny nit-pick.  There are some serious, systemic 'who'/'whom' issues, overlooked by the editor!  I would love to take a crack at editing the 2013 edition!  I think the organization could be cleared of some topical redundancies as well.  But don't get me wrong--I loved in and devoured it very quickly!]