Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on June 13, 2005, 04:18:42 pm

Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Nuclear1 on June 13, 2005, 04:18:42 pm: Well, it's over now--Michael Jackson is not guilty (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159337,00.html) on each and every count.

Thoughts?
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: achtung on June 13, 2005, 04:31:30 pm: I still think he's sick.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: redsniper on June 13, 2005, 04:35:49 pm: Seconded
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Rictor on June 13, 2005, 04:53:56 pm: Watching the MJ case is like running in the Special Olympics...
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Carl on June 13, 2005, 05:03:18 pm: great, now can everyone stop talking about it?
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Unknown Target on June 13, 2005, 05:05:44 pm: Sure, until the next time it happens.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: delta_7890 on June 13, 2005, 05:25:25 pm: I can see it now..

"Woo, not guilty! Sleepover at my place!"
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: TrashMan on June 13, 2005, 05:35:38 pm: The only reason hes out of hte nuthouse is coause he'sa celebrity... and coause america it way too liberal..
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: karajorma on June 13, 2005, 05:37:07 pm: Well he's weird but that doesn't mean that the guy should spend the rest of his life in jail for it.

The prosecution's case was incredibly weak. Here's a tip for next time. Don't claim that someone was abused who is on the list as a defence character witness. :rolleyes:
Don't further taint the case by trying to prove the above mentioned individual was abused using an employee who was sacked, claims to have seen the abuse, done nothing about it for years and then finally appeared in court to testify that he saw something happen which the victim has strenuously denied occured. :rolleyes:

With idiocy like that torpedoing their own witnesses how on Earth did they think they were going to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt?
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Nuke on June 13, 2005, 06:00:33 pm: for the record, nuke doesnt give a ****
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Scuddie on June 13, 2005, 06:05:08 pm: By a count of hands, how many people give a rats ass?
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: WMCoolmon on June 13, 2005, 06:11:51 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Carl
great, now can everyone stop talking about it?
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: achtung on June 13, 2005, 08:36:56 pm: Isn't it amazing how a poor black boy can become a rich white woman.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: mikhael on June 13, 2005, 08:49:11 pm: Quote
Originally posted by TrashMan
The only reason hes out of hte nuthouse is coause he'sa celebrity... and coause america it way too liberal..

Too liberal?

Do you come from mainland China? O.o

Actually, never mind. That's politics and I don't care about your politics. Forget I asked.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 13, 2005, 10:03:27 pm: Quote
The only reason hes out of hte nuthouse is coause he'sa celebrity... and coause america it way too liberal..

Ehhhh.... are you aware that you just implied that Michael Jackson is at the vanguard of American liberalism?
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: WMCoolmon on June 13, 2005, 10:23:42 pm: Reverse that. He just implied that Michael Jackson is at the vanguard of American conservatives.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 13, 2005, 10:34:31 pm: I don't think so. If he were a conservative idol, why would a conservative imply that liberalism has afforded him special treatment?
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Corsair on June 13, 2005, 11:11:52 pm: Quote
Originally posted by delta_7890
I can see it now..

"Woo, not guilty! Sleepover at my place!"
There was a Law & Order like that.

Anyway, I saw this coming a mile away and I'm totally not surprised.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: achtung on June 14, 2005, 12:11:20 am: He's still "In debt up to his eyeballs" anyway.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: BlackDove on June 14, 2005, 12:12:35 am: The guy's image should be in the dictionary next to the word "pedophile".

Also, "one ugly ass mother****er" words too.

Meh, considering the whole thing was staged to get him back in the press (after all, most of his songs suck, and nobody cares about him because he's old now), this shouldn't come as any kind of surprise.

Personally I'd love to see him in jail. Neverland doesn't strike me as just a pedophile place for him, I'm thinking they were having regular pedo orgies there, considering that MJ is an idiot - meaning someone else runs the show.

Beh.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 14, 2005, 12:21:50 am: Quote
The guy's image should be in the dictionary next to the word "pedophile".

I'm not so sure. He seems too strange to be a pedophile. I honestly think it's a distinct possibility that he simply has an unhealthy obsession with recreating a childhood that was ruined, and that he believes the way to do this is to spend a lot of time with children.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: redmenace on June 14, 2005, 12:25:00 am: Yeah, now we can watch Saddam's trial.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 14, 2005, 12:38:35 am: Only if he's not in his underwear.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: redmenace on June 14, 2005, 12:59:10 am: Quote
Originally posted by Ford Prefect

I'm not so sure. He seems too strange to be a pedophile. I honestly think it's a distinct possibility that he simply has an unhealthy obsession with recreating a childhood that was ruined, and that he believes the way to do this is to spend a lot of time with children.
But that only explains a fraction of the crazyness. I really don't believe that this explains for instance the radical operations he has had on his face and body.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: achtung on June 14, 2005, 01:04:19 am: You know something, Iv'e always wondered if you could pull michael jacksons nose off with a small amount of force. and I still think he's a pedophile.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Bobboau on June 14, 2005, 01:07:54 am: you know if I could be garonteed that I'd get to watch Michael Jakson brutaly mudered on national TV, I might be willing to let Sadam go, if he can find a sutably entertaining means of removeing that poor atempt at life and utter comptempt for the art of music in carnate that Jackson is. it truely would take a sadistical mastermind like Sadam to figure out an appropriate means of exacting suficent retrebution against that thing wich has unleashed untold acustical horrors upon our once blisfull world. I honestly cant think of anything good enough, I'm thinking tieing his feet and legs together, tieing him upside down to a poll and slowly pooring molten zinc onto his feet and letting it burn it's way through. but we'd also need the take care that the other reagond of exposed flesh are utalised for pain while he is still able to feel it, so have the pool on top of a fire and hill and poor honey on his chest and into his eyes and have his arms tied into the bottoms of a few throughs filled with hot sodium hydroxide... and get a guy to wip him too... and maybe cut an opening into his lower abdomin and place a starved rat into it, and sew it in. yeah, that'd just about cover the latter half of 1989.
see I'm not good at this like sadam, you look at an industrial plastic shreader and you see, "oh, that could be used for recycaling" Sadam looks at it and thinks "hmm, I could through peopple foot first into this thing and they'd get to feel all of there body getting torn asunder before haveing there head crushed" he's a pro.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Liberator on June 14, 2005, 01:31:46 am: MJ is as sick and perverted as they come, he's need to be locked up for his own good.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Bobboau on June 14, 2005, 01:39:41 am: I don't care about his good, I want him out of the world, he is to polute the universe no longer with his selfness.

think about it, everything he has done and has been braodcast into space, one of these days were gona get our colective asses kicked by some pissed off alien armada seeking revenge for the savige phycological atack that is him/his music.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Black Wolf on June 14, 2005, 02:52:22 am: Quote
Originally posted by BlackDove
(after all, most of his songs suck, and nobody cares about him because he's old now)

For 80's pop, they weren't all that bad. Hell, it's still the driving force of a lot of pop today - people like Justin Timberlake are more or less rehashing Michael Jackson, and people are still buing it. And the guy could dance, you can't deny that.

He's still a crazy bastard though.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Swamp_Thing on June 14, 2005, 03:48:10 am: So, Jacko beats the rap, once again...
Maybe next time the D.A. will start pulling their heads out of their arses and start working. It was their fault, they didn´t do their homework.
Not one single charge, did they win. Not one lowsy charge. What a fiasco!
But who the hell cares anyway...
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: aldo_14 on June 14, 2005, 04:57:21 am: Quote
Originally posted by redmenace
But that only explains a fraction of the crazyness. I really don't believe that this explains for instance the radical operations he has had on his face and body.

Plastic surgery addiction, caused by (apparently) parental abuse (emotional, not physical). Or at least I've heard that suggested.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: NGTM-1R on June 14, 2005, 05:09:55 am: He's publically stated he thinks it's okay to give kids alcohol and sleep with them in the nude...the former illegal and the latter at the least morally questionable...
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Nico on June 14, 2005, 05:11:05 am: Quote
Originally posted by Black Wolf

For 80's pop, they weren't all that bad. Hell, it's still the driving force of a lot of pop today - people like Justin Timberlake are more or less rehashing Michael Jackson, and people are still buing it. And the guy could dance, you can't deny that.

He's still a crazy bastard though.

Am I the only one who finds his stuff much butter than the **** we have nowadays, the snoop doggy dog crap, the britney spears ear f****, the latino bull****, the rap "society sucks, **** the system" brainfarts and all those Muse wannabee things that have made me trash my radio long ago? I'm no MJ fan, I don't even listen to his music (but I feel no displeasure hearing him on the occasion), but give me his music any day over your crappy current "artits".

As for the guy himself, I don't care about him, but he's no more wacko than a Marilyn Manson or Cher :p [Speaker voice] "Today, we present you: Only in America!!!!"[/speaker voice] (that was useless, low, and it felt good too :p)
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: SadisticSid on June 14, 2005, 05:19:53 am: I think the massive debts he's incurred will be recouped by sales of his crap that will no doubt be a consequence of his acquittal. Anyway, he's still a creep, and I'm sure I'd punch him in the face if I ever got the chance, just to see if I could improve it.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Liberator on June 14, 2005, 08:27:01 am: I've been thinking...*waves smoke from in front of face*...I don't know what's more disgusting, MJ's behavior or the fact that so many sycophantic fans are mindless enough to still support him.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: karajorma on June 14, 2005, 08:54:19 am: I agree with Nico on this one. MJ might not have put out anything good for a decade or so but there's nothing wrong with his 80's or 70's stuff. I'm no fan but I certainly think their are much less talented people in the pop world both now and back then making money with crappier records.

As for the weirdness Nico's right again. There are plenty of strange pop stars around. Kill one and another will simply take their place. What you have to deal with is the people who love listening to pop stars private lives.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: aldo_14 on June 14, 2005, 09:55:01 am: Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid
I think the massive debts he's incurred will be recouped by sales of his crap that will no doubt be a consequence of his acquittal. Anyway, he's still a creep, and I'm sure I'd punch him in the face if I ever got the chance, just to see if I could improve it.

It's probably stick to your hand, like pasty-white jam.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 14, 2005, 11:46:22 am: Quote
For 80's pop, they weren't all that bad.

And for genocide, Rwanda wasn't all that bad. Eighties music is a blight upon civilization. Bobboau is right-- we need to lock him up just for the "music" he made.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: karajorma on June 14, 2005, 12:18:23 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
And for genocide, Rwanda wasn't all that bad. Eighties music is a blight upon civilization. Bobboau is right-- we need to lock him up just for the "music" he made.

Like this millenium has done any better. :rolleyes: I'd take MJ over the crazy f**king frog any day of the week.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 14, 2005, 12:19:28 pm: What frog?

And for the record, I hate about 80-90% of any art form. It's the remaining 10-20% that makes them all worth it.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Janos on June 14, 2005, 12:23:13 pm: I'm bad
I'm baaaaaad

Now I can shake my hips to Billie Jean again. I feel rejuvenated. The curse of Michael Jackson's pedophilia has been swept away like the last remnants of Iroquis race. The brave new sun rises, and I hail it. This will turn the life on discoteques upside down.

Nothing will ever be the same.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Unknown Target on June 14, 2005, 12:26:43 pm: I don't know whether he did it or not, but I do hate his music. It's too freaking...girly? It's a guy that sounds like a girl. Either that or he had his balls removed, I'm not sure which.
Anyway, nowadays most of the mainstream stuff is crap, that's why you have to look around to find good music (which is the way it's always been).
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Flipside on June 14, 2005, 12:27:30 pm: 80's music is based on 70's music, just as 90's music is based on 80's music etc etc, believe it or not, we only divide it up into decades for convenience.

If we are going to destroy people simply for being crap musically, then there is a long long queue before we get to MJ, and Crazy Frog is possibly up there with 'Shuddupa your face' as being first against the wall.

MJ is a wierdo, theres no's doubt about that, and he lives in lala lulu land as far as money is concerned, but then, theres a few governments I could apply the same ethics to, even if they don't look quite as wierd. Many people tolerate Marylyn Manson because he is wierd and 'cool' and yet Micheal Jackson is wierd and 'not cool' and so gets ostracised.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 14, 2005, 12:29:12 pm: Well, it's a matter of personal taste. You're all just going to have to learn, sooner or later, that part of becoming mature is learning to agree with my personal tastes.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: karajorma on June 14, 2005, 12:35:27 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
If we are going to destroy people simply for being crap musically, then there is a long long queue before we get to MJ, and Crazy Frog is possibly up there with 'Shuddupa your face' as being first against the wall.

Possibly? For all that song was crap at least it was about something a bit meaningful rather than simply being an attempt to cash in on a f**king ringtone.

Crazy Frog has to be several rungs higher. The creators of that song should be digging their own graves just as Black Lace are led out and blindfolded.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Flipside on June 14, 2005, 12:40:39 pm: LOL True, in fact, had I known it was possible to make money simply from going 'Beee dada Wheee!' like some kind of Teletubby on Angel Dust over a tune which was, and I really must point this out, made in the same decade as Micheal Jacksons hits, I'd have never bothered learning how to play ;)
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: kasperl on June 14, 2005, 12:40:48 pm: I'd like to point out that most of the death threats in this thread are against musicians, for producing bad music, instead for pedophiles, for hurting children.

Carry on.

(This is just an observation, I mostly agree on the musicians, just not the killing.)
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 14, 2005, 12:49:16 pm: Well, since I'm not convinced that Michael Jackson is a pedophile, I consider bad music to be the more relevant issue here. Hell, forget 80's music-- most of the music since the decline of swing has been audial vomit.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Taristin on June 14, 2005, 12:50:40 pm: But wasn't that one kid (not this one, but te one before who accused him) able to accurately describe a birthmark on MJ's penis? How on earth could he do that, if he'd never seen it?
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Flipside on June 14, 2005, 12:57:35 pm: It was a birthmark on his lower abdomen that wasn't mentioned by the supposed victim, he did a video about 2 years after the incident with his sister where you are unlucky enough to see MJs Midriff, there is a Birthmark there which wasn't mentioned at all in the trial.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Nico on June 14, 2005, 12:59:21 pm: Oh yeah, mister Mickael "I've had my whole body rebuilt" Jackson would leave a birthmark on his winnie ~~
I'm sure my g/f couldn't accurately describe a birthmark on mine, and I'm sure a kid who's being raped by a man is not staring in awe at the thing, he must be disgusted, crying, looking away and surely not counting the hair on the guy's left ball. Get real and stop reading tabloids :p
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Flipside on June 14, 2005, 01:03:14 pm: Well, you can get stick on Birthmarks these days, if you really feel the need to add blemishes to your skin.

I notice that George Best is next up for the Inquisition, I suppose if you arrest enough famous people, someone has to be guilty.... :nervous:
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Black Wolf on June 14, 2005, 01:04:00 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Ford Prefect

And for genocide, Rwanda wasn't all that bad. Eighties music is a blight upon civilization.

*Thwack*

Metallica started in the eighties. Crowded House started in the 80s REM started in the 80s. Pantera. U2. Bon Jovi. Guns 'n Roses. Motley Crue. So many more.

Not to mention all the great music that came out of established bands like ACDC, Led Zep, Aerosmith, Kiss, Black Sabbath, Cold Chisel. Ugh. You're retarded.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 14, 2005, 01:09:57 pm: The only rock band that ever really earned my respect is Pink Floyd, and even their 80s albums sucked. Your list means nothing to me.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Scuddie on June 14, 2005, 01:10:31 pm: Why are you people still posting in this thread?
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Unknown Target on June 14, 2005, 01:19:08 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Well, since I'm not convinced that Michael Jackson is a pedophile, I consider bad music to be the more relevant issue here. Hell, forget 80's music-- most of the music since the decline of swing has been audial vomit.

:wtf: Swing? Hold on, lemme get in my '43 Ford. This baby gets all the way up to fourty, and let me tell ya, ain't nothin on this planet that can catch me, 'cept one of them damn aerioplanes.

I disagree. There's been a lot of great music, it's just that every decade has it's crap records and it's good records, and the most notable past three or four are no exception. Look beyond the record labels and go looking for people who aren't afraid to do different things. The reason most pop music sucks is because they want to get rich more than they want to make music, so they just fall in line with all the other "cool" stuff. They get money, people love them, and they never have to be original. People who don't really care or have hope of becoming super rich rockstars generally make better music, because since they have no ulterior motive of being popular, they can do whatever the hell they want.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Flipside on June 14, 2005, 01:25:23 pm: This is very very much a matter of taste you know, I love modern film music over old classical music, simply because of the depth and variation that is available to composers now that wasn't available then. Theres been a lot of 'holds' lifted on music (Radiohead, another 80's born group are a great example - some of their singles are brilliant, some more of them are crap).
Swing has it's place, and it's fans, but swing accents the beat and uses 3/4 and other swing beats a lot (obviously), Blues and it's children (modern music) has it's accent on the offbeat and is almost exclusively 4/4. so it very very much depends on what your own personal 'rhythm' is.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 14, 2005, 01:30:28 pm: Quote
The reason most pop music sucks is because they want to get rich more than they want to make music, so they just fall in line with all the other "cool" stuff. They get money, people love them, and they never have to be original. People who don't really care or have hope of becoming super rich rockstars generally make better music, because since they have no ulterior motive of being popular, they can do whatever the hell they want.

Anyone serious about his/her art wants it to be popular. If they say otherwise, they're probably lying. I don't buy into the romantic notion of "pure" art, free of commercial influence. The artists I do like had major record deals. Big band jazz was the pop music of its own time, Debussy was stylish in salons in the 1900s. I don't care about that. It just happens that the direction of popular musical style since the middle of the century has been one that I find distasteful.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Taristin on June 14, 2005, 01:32:26 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Flipside
This is very very much a matter of taste you know, I love modern film music over old classical music, simply because of the depth and variation that is available to composers now that wasn't available then.

Try Sigur Ros. Look for Hjartao Hammast (bamm Bamm Bamm) and Vidrar Vel Til Loftarasa. Or Sven-G-Englar. Excellent songs. The latter one was in Vanilla Sky.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Flipside on June 14, 2005, 01:40:08 pm: Every artist wasnts his/her work to be liked, but there are artists who create what they like and hope other people will like it too, and there are artists that produce what they think other people would like.

Jean Michelle Jarre and Mike Oldfeild are good examples of musicians that became famous by doing what they liked. The problem is that everything they tried to produce afterwards was in the second category, they were constantly trying to reproduce that first 'hit' if you will.

There are artists that have never become big, but have become at least recognised, and have done so by sticking their 'their own thing', most of them have been around for years though, and there is precious little sign of more bands rising to replace them, since modern hopefulls don't want to start something new or make a statement, they want a quick road to cash on the back of other peoples work.

That, I think is where the change appeared, when music, like art, stopped being a way of making a statement, and started to become a commercial 'customer is always right' affair. Now Music, like Art, only shocks for selling value.

Edit : Scuse my typing, I'm having a 'bad vision' day ;)

And I'll check that out Raa, thanks, I'm listening to a lot of Eric Serra at the moment, Big Blue and 5th Element, great stuff ;)
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Taristin on June 14, 2005, 01:41:38 pm: I actually have a jean michelle jarre song... >.>

But Sigur Ros, they make what they like, and I think it rocks. :D
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Unknown Target on June 14, 2005, 02:12:51 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Anyone serious about his/her art wants it to be popular. If they say otherwise, they're probably lying. I don't buy into the romantic notion of "pure" art, free of commercial influence. The artists I do like had major record deals. Big band jazz was the pop music of its own time, Debussy was stylish in salons in the 1900s. I don't care about that. It just happens that the direction of popular musical style since the middle of the century has been one that I find distasteful.

Flipside refutes this pretty much the same way I would've. Every artist wants to be liked, true, but the pop bands that blast that crap that sounds the exact same as the twenty thousand other bands in the business make music for other people to like them. Artists who are daring enough to make unique music (some fail, some succeed), make music that they themselves like, and only coincidentally other people may or may not like. Yes, they want them to like them, but the good bands won't change what they're doing so that they will.

And that (last sentence) is your opinion, not others, so it is not necessarily true.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Scuddie on June 14, 2005, 02:14:59 pm: Deftones is living proof of that. Save from their latest album.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: pyro-manic on June 14, 2005, 04:06:09 pm: I don't really care. He's a disturbed child in the body of a middle-aged man - that's bound to lead to some weird sh*t...
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: aldo_14 on June 14, 2005, 05:30:20 pm: Quote
Originally posted by pyro-manic
I don't really care. He's a disturbed child in the body of a middle-aged man - that's bound to lead to some weird sh*t...

The wierder **** happened when the disturbed middle aged man was in the body of a child...............

ALLEGEDLY
Spoiler:

Don't sue me! Don't sue me! Don't sue me! Don't sue me! Don't sue me! Don't sue me! Don't sue me! Don't sue me!
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Clave on June 14, 2005, 05:38:23 pm: I don't care that he was found not guilty - It doesn't mean he's innocent...

Also he weighs 6 1/2 stone, and looks like this:

(http://as.wn.com/i/a6/25c83fe2d76e47.jpg)

I wouldn't let a child within 10 miles of a freakish ghoul like that!
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: aldo_14 on June 14, 2005, 05:41:24 pm: He was in far better shape in the 80s, to be fair.

(http://maxtoons.com/skeletor08.jpg)
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: TrashMan on June 14, 2005, 06:14:22 pm: LOL.....
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 14, 2005, 07:07:01 pm: Quote
And that (last sentence) is your opinion, not others, so it is not necessarily true.

Of course it's my opinion. This whole line of discourse is about our opinions. Who said any of this had anything to do with fact?

As for artistic integrity, think about the objective of art in the first place: communication. An artist, whether it is a writer, painter, musician, or whatever, creates out of an extremely powerful desire to communicate thoughts or emotions to the general public. Now, as I implied before, most artists will never admit that this is part of their thought process, because it doesn't fit with the rosey view of art as something rebellious and refreshing. But I think it's inevitable that anyone who is creating a work of art thinks, on some level, about how the work can be adjusted to make it more appealing to the audience, thus creating a wider channel for its intended message, (which rarely survives the journey from the artist to the viewer intact anyway.)
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Bobboau on June 14, 2005, 07:47:07 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Black Wolf

Metallica started in the eighties. Crowded House started in the 80s REM started in the 80s. Pantera. U2. Bon Jovi. Guns 'n Roses. Motley Crue. So many more.

Not to mention all the ... music that came out of established bands like ACDC, Led Zep, Aerosmith, Kiss, Black Sabbath, Cold Chisel.

with the posable exeption of REM, what was your point?

the only good thing to come out of the 80s was the 90s, and even that was just sort of ok.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Scuddie on June 14, 2005, 08:32:32 pm: Bob, I am astonished at you. How could you say the best that came of the 80s was the 90s? The 80s had the worst music, movies, culture, etc true, but it also had just as much of the best music, movies, culture, etc. In the 90s, there weren't many bad things, but the same goes for the good. The 80s was about contrast, the 90s about mediocrity. And I'd much rather live thru a series of ups and downs than a lifeless and non-changing existance based solely on vanity. Face it, the 90s sucked.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Unknown Target on June 14, 2005, 08:36:02 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Of course it's my opinion. This whole line of discourse is about our opinions. Who said any of this had anything to do with fact?

A) Earlier you stated it as fact, and B) I was more or less conceding to your point because I didn't want to argue.

Quote
As for artistic integrity, think about the objective of art in the first place: communication. An artist, whether it is a writer, painter, musician, or whatever, creates out of an extremely powerful desire to communicate thoughts or emotions to the general public. Now, as I implied before, most artists will never admit that this is part of their thought process, because it doesn't fit with the rosey view of art as something rebellious and refreshing. But I think it's inevitable that anyone who is creating a work of art thinks, on some level, about how the work can be adjusted to make it more appealing to the audience, thus creating a wider channel for its intended message, (which rarely survives the journey from the artist to the viewer intact anyway.)

A lot of "true" artists don't do that. For instance, to take a music standpoint: Nightwish made the music they wanted. Half the people hated it, half the people loved it. Now, if they were simply going straight for money, then they would have modified their music so that they could maybe get more of the hating crowd. But they didn't, and stuck to their original music.
(Now, I'm not saying anything about Nightwish's actual objetives, it's just that out of all the bands I listen to, I know the most about them, and that's what it seems like to me).
Example from the world of art: Take any controversial art show. Pick an artist that is constantly controversial. There you have an artit that will not compromise what he does so that it is well liked. And I guarantee you, you will find more than four of those artists in an eight artist showcase.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 14, 2005, 10:51:01 pm: I didn't state anything as fact; I omitted qualifiers because people don't place "I think" in front of every opinion they express. It's tedious.

Like I said, the intentions very often don't carry over to the viewer's interpretation. Just because an artist wants a work to be popular doesn't mean it will be. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that every musician is a slave of the Great Unwashed, simply that the artistic impulse is a desire to be appreciated, and thus nobody who creates art truly "does his own thing". It also depends on the target audience. An artist may only care about a certain subculture or demographic group.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Unknown Target on June 14, 2005, 11:53:56 pm: Oh whatever. I'm not going to start an argument over something as stupid as what way you said something or another.
Anyway, all artists I know (including myself) desire to be appreciated, but true artists create art based on themselves, and only incidentaly to be appreciated by others.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 15, 2005, 12:15:14 am: Quote
Anyway, all artists I know (including myself) desire to be appreciated, but true artists create art based on themselves, and only incidentaly to be appreciated by others.

They're lying. Not to other people-- they're lying to themselves. Not that that's a problem; everyone lies to maintain a coherent image. I'm a writer, and I do it, I'm sure. Of course, people lie about lying too. We all live in bubbles of contrived reality. Makes the world go 'round.
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Flipside on June 15, 2005, 12:54:36 pm: Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau

with the posable exeption of REM, what was your point?

the only good thing to come out of the 80s was the 90s, and even that was just sort of ok.

I thought most of the HLPers came from the 80's? ;)

Funny thing is, in the 80's they were calling the 70's the 'decade that taste forgot', now, in the 2000's we are doing more or less the same thing to the 80's. And I can promise that within 10 years there will be an 80's revival, just as there have been 50's, 60's and 70's revival, and then suddenly it'll all be trendy again. Such is the fickle nature of fashion ;)
Title: Not Guilty!
Post by: Ford Prefect on June 15, 2005, 01:22:08 pm: That's why it's better to hate them all. :)