Magnus

Pet peeves

184 posts in this topic

@Downhill

Who's talking about reducing suicides to stupidity and addiction here? We're not discussing suicide in general terms here, to which I agree, have very often psychological and physical  abusive backgrounds. Which are horrible. 

We're talking here about the glorifying of people, in this case musicians, who did not have these issues and commit suicide by self brought up on addictions or other stuff. Which is bloody stupid as they did not take the responsibility for their own actions and life! Getting addicted out of macho, curious or whatever behaviour is stupid, no matter how you turn it! Even more stupid it is, not to be open to criticism from people around you or accept help or out of ignorance, macho behaviour or other flaws!

Everybody knows that drugs or too much alcohol or nicotine or magic mushrooms are bad for you! It's stupid to try that and it's your own responsibility for your own health (I'm not even talking the responsibility towards your family etc., because most of the time a lot of family and friends get damaged in the process). When thats ends in suicide, it's been stupid, selfish and sad in my opinion. Glorifying that is stupid and disgusting. 

Far too often people don't claim any or very little responsibility for what they do, especially with these 'superstars'!! It's a bit like, when the most criminal, murderous, vile people die and people say: 'Nothing but good about the dead'! So, when you did murder 43 people, raped 112 women, stole 234 million or are responsible for millions of deaths, suddenly when they're dead, you can't say anymore that they're utterly vile people! I find that so very hypocritical and will never play along such nonsense. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the glorification is stupid and very potentially dangerous, but I disagree as to why people even start to take drugs in the first place. Many do so because of psychological or mental health issues, which are way more common than we like to present, or in order to cope with the burden that often comes with fame (anxiety, pressure to perform, no private life, quite often being held hostage by companies etc). I do not feel sorry for people who are too famous to deal with it, because the majority of the population is in way worse conditions (I do make an exemption for kids who became famous early and had abusive parents/representatives/whatever).

Stupidity also does play some part in starting drugs, but ending up in suicide is a far road and people don't commit suicide on a mushroom high.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Downhill said.

@hunebedbouwerI respect you, but how the heck do you know what "issues" they did or didn't have...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Downhill

There is far too much sugarcoating deeds of irresponsible famous people. They do have the same responsibility for themselves as your normal Joe has for his! They come away with far too much and set horrible examples!

Plenty of people have died of mushrooms. Google it! 

 

@Eilenna

I respect you too, but how the heck can you otherwise give any opinion, than on what you read and see. Combine that with common sense and you can have a pretty accurate and sensible opinion. If you don't agree with it, fine. If you do, also fine. That's my stance in this case.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to offer my take on this:

- Drugs are generally a bad idea
- Killing your own self doesn't generally maximize your utility, in a game-theoretic sense.
- Most people who commit suicide aren't super healthy, mentally.
- Rockstars are rarely good role models for kids, in fact they are marketed precisely as bad role models, because... you know how the teenage mind works.
- Way too many people who would do a favour to humanity by jumping off a building sadly oppose the idea.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13.7.2017 at 5:36 PM, Symphoniker said:

Orion..THAT I hate. Hating on Metallica, just to  come across as Trv and special. Specially people of my generation, that is, Millennials born between 1985-and 1995. Like, you were there when they released Master of Puppets or ...And Justice for all. I have no shame to say that the first Metallica song I heard was Unforgiven II. Because that's what played on MTV back then. And i Liked it. And I'm not ashamed to say that I liked Load and Reload, they have pretty strong tunes. Yeah, they're not thrash metal, but to this day, "Fuel" and "The Memory  Remains" have become live staples. Hell, I even like "I dissappear" and dare to say, Frantic. Yeah, I don't like  everything they put out, they have been quite inconsistent, but they are not mediocre musicians just because they became more "radio friendly", In fact I think they're better musicians than most black metal bands that repeat the same riffs over and over and just shriek because its trv. I do can accept feeling the change if you were part of that generation, if you were present when they changed styles. But at the same time..man, it's been over 20 years, get over it.

I don't like everything from them either. And I don't really mind if people think everything after Justice sucks, or that Lars Ulrich *insert something negative here*, but I don't want to hear about it over and over again. It's like the joke about vegans: How do you know someone is a vegan? They'll tell you. Now how do you know someone likes only the first four Metallica album...?:dash:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't like Kill'em All that much (except Seek and Destroy and Four Horsemen), but Lightning, Puppets & Justice are all cover-to-cover masterpieces to me. Black was and still is a bit of a lackluster, IMO, but personally I actually like that change in direction they took with Load and ReLoad and there are many songs I like in those records. St. Anger passed me completely and I would have liked DM, but since my position on the topic of overtly loud mastering is what it is.....

I haven't really listened to the latest album at all. 

And I'm also completely fed up with those Ulrich-rants all over the place. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the original issue on this thread was the fact of making money out of playing the fake tortured soul and especially glorifying suicides. I think we can all agree that especially the last issue is stupid and unwanted.

My last example: I really like the Doors, really like the singing of Jim Morrison, but found the life he lead pretty stupid and over the top in many regards. I never understood  the cult hype of him after his death. I thought he was pretty stupid.............:dunno:    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably one of my pettiest pet peeves: I don't like the Beatles. Which is ok, it's personal preference. BUT I go the extra mile: I just can't stand them because of all the hippie-hipster-vintage cult status they are given by guys. I swear to God you can be in a group of both men and women, and if you dare to say you don't like the Beatles, all the men will be personally offended and will try their best to convince you that you are wrong (as if taste has anything to do with being right/wrong).

My ex is largely guilty of this behavior, he even had a huge poster of the Beatles in his living room (I still remember having to carry the heavy as hell portrait case he wanted to put it in) and I would go do the  most to show him how much he can't make me like the Beatles: every time he would put on some 70s band, I always ALWAYS said "that's the Beatles, right?"  :popcorn: 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DownHill said:

Probably one of my pettiest pet peeves: I don't like the Beatles. Which is ok, it's personal preference. BUT I go the extra mile: I just can't stand them because of all the hippie-hipster-vintage cult status they are given by guys. I swear to God you can be in a group of both men and women, and if you dare to say you don't like the Beatles, all the men will be personally offended and will try their best to convince you that you are wrong (as if taste has anything to do with being right/wrong).

I feel your pain, sister.

What happened there is that the boomer generation for some reason managed to turn their Justin Biebers into beloved cultural institutions on par with England's most prominent thespians, instead of throwing them in the dustbin once they were old enough to drink legally.

The recording industry of course jumped at the chance of selling Beatles CD remasters, the re-remasters and the platinum collections and contributed to cement their cult status.

(Yes, the Beatles are better than Justin Bieber. Yes, I enjoy a few Beatles albums now and then. No, I'm afraid they're still cheesy bubblegum pop originally marketed at teenagers. No, they are not particularly more respectable than any other boy band of the 60s.)
 

12 hours ago, DownHill said:

every time he would put on some 70s band, I always ALWAYS said "that's the Beatles, right?"  :popcorn: 

I might be missing the joke here but surely you meant 60s, right?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a good thing to fight back against elitism, you know? This whole superiority complex that people have without even realizing it. Like, you are into one of the most famous bands of all time, how unique of you.

Somehow I don't see the same thing about Queen though. Granted, if you go on 9gag (is it still working? no idea) and try to say you don't like Queen you're gonna be eaten alive, but it has never occurred to me with a group of people in real life, but it has with the Beatles.

ps. I do love Queen with all my might, but the observation stands. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Downhill

He must have really enjoyed, carrying and justifying that Beatles preference and status into the 80's by this release then.............

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hunebedbouwer I have no idea what this is but he was generally not the most up-to-date person with new releases or such. I know that he liked the Beatles because his father likes the Beatles too and took him to see Paul McCartney when he was very very small. I think this is very sweet and open, to like something because it connects you with your childhood and beloved people around you. 

WHy did I HaVE TO deAL WITH it :dash:

ps. I am making it look like he tortured me with the Beatles lol. It was not bad,  but this elitist behavior did eventually invade other aspects of the relationship: my taste in films, my knowledge in history (even though he admitted I know so much more than him? And he was a historian? He still had to hear the same info coming from one of his friends in order to take me seriously?), even the fact that I freaking like chicken sausages which he considered to be "really really bad". Back to topic, elitism. Pet peeve No1.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Downhill

Yep, you sounded like a tortured soul alright (haunted by the Beatles, that's a first for me:giggle:) and I started to get worried..........

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DownHill said:

ps. I am making it look like he tortured me with the Beatles lol. It was not bad,  but this elitist behavior did eventually invade other aspects of the relationship: my taste in films, my knowledge in history (even though he admitted I know so much more than him? And he was a historian? He still had to hear the same info coming from one of his friends in order to take me seriously?), even the fact that I freaking like chicken sausages which he considered to be "really really bad". Back to topic, elitism. Pet peeve No1.

I'm sorry, I thought elitism referred to feelings of cultural or moral superiority that follow from one's higher taste or learning.

You know, that thing that goes with fine wine, filet mignon and dodecaphony, not bloody bubblegum pop and sausages.

What a fool.

(As a side note, I find that one is entirely justified in feeling superior because of one's learning or refined taste, especially in this day and age. I am what you'd call an "elitist". I believe that we are created equal, but we no longer are equal by the time we reach legal age, and some are condemned to forever live as backward hillbilles.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree because there is something simply called circumstances. Not every one is born or raised with the same chances for bettering themselves in taste. And when all is said and done, neither a Beatles fan or non-fan will make a difference simply by having what we decide is "higher tastes". It's all socially constructed anyway. 

I don't care or feel superior or inferior for liking or not liking things. I only feel people are inferior/superior for their consequential choices. Choices which have consequences in people's lives.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DownHill said:

And when all is said and done, neither a Beatles fan or non-fan will make a difference simply by having what we decide is "higher tastes".

In the sense that it's impossible to have higher tastes and obsess over the Beatles, yes.

 

1 hour ago, DownHill said:

I don't care or feel superior or inferior for liking or not liking things.

Let's not mix things up. It's not a matter of "liking" and "not liking", it's a matter of "being able to understand and appreciate".

The man who is able to understand and appreciate one art form is, all things being equal, superior to the one who can't.

 

1 hour ago, DownHill said:

I don't care or feel superior or inferior for liking or not liking things. I only feel people are inferior/superior for their consequential choices. Choices which have consequences in people's lives.

<s> Ew, people. So uninteresting. 9 billions of them, mostly useless. </s>

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are also mixing two different things. Taste and recognition are two different things. I can recognize that filet mignon is definitely better than chicken sausage, but I might actually like the latter. I can recognize that wine is so much better and refined than schnapps but I can still prefer, or have a taste for, the latter, and there is nothing inferior or superior about that.

 I can recognize that Nicki Minaj is not Beethoven  and still have a better taste for Minaj, simply because taste and preference has nothing to do with superiority. Hell, one can even like both just the same, as I do. Now, Beethoven has contributed to music, culture, and humanity in general more than Minaj, or the Beatles, or all of our contemporary artists. In this sense, he is superior. The people who like his music are not. They just happen to like it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DownHill said:

But you are also mixing two different things. Taste and recognition are two different things. I can recognize that filet mignon is definitely better than chicken sausage, but I might actually like the latter. I can recognize that wine is so much better and refined than schnapps but I can still prefer, or have a taste for, the latter, and there is nothing inferior or superior about that.

 I can recognize that Nicki Minaj is not Beethoven  and still have a better taste for Minaj, simply because taste and preference has nothing to do with superiority. Hell, one can even like both just the same, as I do. Now, Beethoven has contributed to music, culture, and humanity in general more than Minaj, or the Beatles, or all of our contemporary artists. In this sense, he is superior. The people who like his music are not. They just happen to like it.

To be honest, this seems pretty broken logic to me in various respects, last but not least the fact that you are mixing apples and oranges (wine and soft drinks, bubblegum pop and "serious" music) - surely even gourmet connoisseurs can enjoy a pack of crisps now and then?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok ok ok, let me be more specific, you are right. Now, some weeks ago I was lucky to be invited for a dinner in a very distinguished restaurant, where I tried an Argentinian Malbec. It was amazing, it was divine. A week later, I tried to buy a similar wine from a deli. It was not exactly the same, it was cheaper and not a pure Malbec. I liked it better. I could taste that it was not as refined and delicate, but I liked it better.

Now, the authentic Malbec was superior to the second bottle I tried. I  though do not consider myself superior for tasting and recognizing the difference, or inferior for liking the second one more. I hope this makes sense :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I REALLY hate that my friends don't respect my musical taste. I mean, of course, it's ok if they don't like Symphonic Metal, Gothic Metal, Rock, New Age... But at least they should say "I don't like this music" rather than "This music is ****". They don't understand there are more musical genres outside Electro. I don't enjoy it, but I respect it, as they like it. They don't do the same with me. A while ago I was listening to Delain (!!!) and they told me they were disappointed because I hear "that romantic music" XD

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, any kind of metal - even symphonic - should earn you more points on the "macho scale" than any form of electronic dance music. Of course, it's absolutely ridiculous to measure music by "manliness", since it's also just another excuse for sexist behaviour (implying that something that's considered more feminine is lesser than). But still, it never fails to amaze me how people who use this scale and listen to any form of dance music or hip hop think they're macho for doing so while at the same time calling any form of rock or metal "gay" (since they also wrongly assume homosexuality goes hand in hand with femininity). Going purely by stereotypes, what's more aggressive and representative of testosterone than electric guitars? 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so tired of all of this sort of thinking. Why can't people just listen to what they like, and not care what other people listen to. When people judge other people's music taste, it says more about them. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now