More music industry b.s.

[counting_saturn]

So I read JT from HH little speal about how the industry needs to change. He had some great points. I used to work for a label and was bored so I wanted to put my two cents in. Im posting what I wrote on here just to see what you guys think. Good idea, do i suck, y ou know whatever

As someone who used to work for a label, here is my worthless input


I'm 25. My Junior year of High School Napster came out. I downloaded tons of songs. I still bought albums. Napster helped me find bands that I never would have had the time/chance to hear. As time went on ipods came out. That changed how we listen to the music. So how we get and listen to music all the suddenly dramatically changed.

Here is where the industry: kids my age became adults and did out little brothers and sisters became ‘teenages’ (by far the biggest buyers of music). Only they had no real history of buying music. They grew up in an age where you download music and put in on an iPod. They (many of YOU) have NO need whatsoever for a CD. Its not that you don’t like them, its just that well you literally did not form the habit of listening to whole albums. How could you of?


So the moral of the story is that time, mp3's, and ipod's killed the industry.

It’s done. It’s all over with. Labels need to stop focusing on albums. Albums will always sell, but more as novelty items. (vinyl anyone?)

I’m sorry (industry big suit folks) but its simple economics. People will not buy something if its available for free in such as easy form.

Labels need to put effort towards developing artist. The artist as a whole needs to become their assets, not jus the music they produce. (Emphasis on people, not on product. Though to a certain extent the people become the product. This is where good morals come in. But this is the music industry we are talking about) Their fiscal money needs to go towards supplying merchandise, tour support, management, etc.

Good God, imagine a generation of bands not in thousands of dollars worth of debt, singed to deals that benefit both them and the new kinds of 'labels'.

You are a fool if you say a band doesn’t need a label. Underoath would not be where they are without three things 1) God (if you chose to belief this) 2) Their work ethic 3) Tooth and Nail. They have worked their asses of for this band. (Also, Emery, Anberlin, Mae, etc)

So in summary labels stop putting all your money behind albums. Put your thousands of dollars into paying for gas, vans, buses, merch, per diems, etc. My God could you even put a band on a healthy salary? Think about it.

Bands, put on better live shows. This is how you will get big. Not by putting shitty 'please check out our band' shit on myspace. Build some fucking word of mouth.

[Getup and Dance]

JT from HH??

[summer skin]

Stopped reading after you said people only buy vinyl as a novelty.

[weeberteeoatser]

People still buy albums even though they're easy to find online. Mp3s and ipods aren't "killing the industry".

[counting_saturn]

People still buy albums even though they're easy to find online. Mp3s and ipods aren't "killing the industry".


are you kidding me? i'm going to pretend you didn't say that. do some fucking research.

[counting_saturn]

I got to where he said God made Underoath what they are.


really? i mean i put it there because thats something that the band would say. \


holy shit, this is why i hate music message boards.

[counting_saturn]

I got to where he said God made Underoath what they are.


really? i mean i put it there because thats something that the band would say. \


holy shit, this is why i hate music message boards.

[Getup and Dance]

You probably should have just put this in your blog.

[weeberteeoatser]

are you kidding me? i'm going to pretend you didn't say that. do some fucking research.
Here's your fucking research: I still buy albums even though they're available online for free. Way to waste your time and post this entire thing and then complain about the responses you're getting. Pretending people aren't disagreeing with you is an extremely mature move on your part, go you. It's not a fact, it's an opinion.

[absolutecrunk]

I stopped reading after I misread and thought it said "I'm 25 and in my junior year of high school." hahahahahaha

[absolutecrunk]

really? i mean i put it there because thats something that the band would say. \


holy shit, this is why i hate music message boards.
this is the appropriate genre for underoath, oddly enough

[llwilliamsll]

Here's your fucking research: I still buy albums even though they're available online for free. Way to waste your time and post this entire thing and then complain about the responses you're getting. Pretending people aren't disagreeing with you is an extremely mature move on your part, go you. It's not a fact, it's an opinion.
Your feistiness is making me hot.

Nonetheless, it seems like OP's points are a bit of as to why the music industry may not be making as much bank as they used to. People are still buying albums and there are numbers to prove so. People don't buy vinyl just as novelty. Ipods and mp3 have only been new means of carrying around music rather thab a cd plyer and a while bunch of cds. That's not to say that it's the definite means for cd sales dropping, at least on its own. You really should have just put it on your blog as Get Up stated.

[counting_saturn]

Your feistiness is making me hot.

Nonetheless, it seems like OP's points are a bit of as to why the music industry may not be making as much bank as they used to. People are still buying albums and there are numbers to prove so. People don't buy vinyl just as novelty. Ipods and mp3 have only been new means of carrying around music rather thab a cd plyer and a while bunch of cds. That's not to say that it's the definite means for cd sales dropping, at least on its own. You really should have just put it on your blog as Get Up stated.


okay, the blog thing i will accept.

regardless, labels dont lay off 2000 people, shut down the majority of west coast offices, reduce labels like virgin virgin and capital to sheer names rather than business, just because they are releasing crappy music. 2007 xms sales dropped 20% from 2006 sales. thats a problem. it came from somewhere. every year since 2002 sales have been declining. but somehow music seems to be more popular and relevenat than it EVER has before. why?

weeberteeoatser tghat isnt fucking research. thats you trying to sound like you know something.

[x togepi x]

i like how people who think filesharing is the reason the industry is in trouble conviently ignore how people used to tape singles off the radio and albums off other people's turntables.

[swt_catastrophe]

umm... yeah, i don't buy vinyl for "novelty"

[thespearkid]

That JT fellow didn't post a single legitimate reason for the industry going down the drains.

[weeberteeoatser]

Your feistiness is making me hot.

Nonetheless, it seems like OP's points are a bit of as to why the music industry may not be making as much bank as they used to. People are still buying albums and there are numbers to prove so. People don't buy vinyl just as novelty. Ipods and mp3 have only been new means of carrying around music rather thab a cd plyer and a while bunch of cds. That's not to say that it's the definite means for cd sales dropping, at least on its own. You really should have just put it on your blog as Get Up stated.
Ooh baby.

No I get what he's saying, it's just annoying how people come on here, type up these whole big threads, and then complain about the quality of the responses they get. This is something that's been said what, at least thirty times over the past few months alone? MP3s and iPods aren't the ONLY reason numbers for buying albums has been dropping, and vinyl isn't ONLY bought for novelty, I'd say rarely from the people I know that buy vinyl, myself included occasionally. It's ridiculous to take something like the decline of sales in the music industry and blame it on teenagers that like to grab a free album if they find it online. Personally, I've had to make the choice between buying an album or having enough gas to get to school/work for the week, and I'm definitely not going to choose buying the album when it's available online, and I don't see anything wrong with that. But if I have the extra cash, yeah, I'll pick up an album or two even if I can easily find that album online.


Edit: Especially when you come in here and make a thread with the word "bullshit" in the title. Who's going to take you seriously like that?

[counting_saturn]

did you even read all that i wrote?

i put in up as a blog. i tried to make a few things more clear. if you think i am wrong, get a job at a label and tell me otherwise.

oh wait! most are not hiring. yet there are tons of unpaid internships available. wonder why.

[theguy77]

So in summary labels stop putting all your money behind albums. Put your thousands of dollars into paying for gas, vans, buses, merch, per diems, etc. My God could you even put a band on a healthy salary? Think about it.

yeah this definitely makes sense because if record labels disregard their primary source of income, that means they could use the money they dont receive anymore, to pay the band's expenses in addition to their own. great thinking.

[Until The Bombs]

i like how people who think filesharing is the reason the industry is in trouble conviently ignore how people used to tape singles off the radio and albums off other people's turntables.

Exactly. I can't count the number of times I recorded my parents vinyl on to tape as a kid.

[Until The Bombs]

So the moral of the story is that time, mp3's, and ipod's killed the industry.


MP3's are not at fault. Apple is largely to blame. Singles have never been more successful than they currently are. However, they don't make money. But Apple doesn't give a shit because they are only in the business to sell their hardware.

[SanePsychotic]

did you even read all that i wrote?

i put in up as a blog. i tried to make a few things more clear. if you think i am wrong, get a job at a label and tell me otherwise.

oh wait! most are not hiring. yet there are tons of unpaid internships available. wonder why.

And did you even read what she wrote? She was just disagreeing with you. If you can't handle someone saying, "No, I don't agree with what you're saying and this is why..." then leave. It's not like she was even attacking you, so I don't see why you're getting so defensive.

[SanePsychotic]

There's always going to be a market for a physical copy of music, wether it's in CD or vinyl (or even cassettes if you want to go that way - I still listen to some mixtapes I've aquired). It's just that the market won't be as large and as profitable.

[weeberteeoatser]

There's always going to be a market for a physical copy of music, wether it's in CD or vinyl (or even cassettes if you want to go that way - I still listen to some mixtapes I've aquired). It's just that the market won't be as large and as profitable.
Exactly. And it's not like music sales are the only thing going down in our economy today.

[SanePsychotic]

Exactly. And it's not like music sales are the only thing going down in our economy today.

Yes, pretty much everything is doing down the drain.

I liked the point you made about paying for gas versus buying music. Hell, if I had my way I'd live somewhere where I could walk everywhere or had good public transit. Then pretty much all of my extra money would be towards CDs.

[Renee]

Who is JT, and why is it not Justin Timberlake?

[SanePsychotic]

I would probably listen to him more if it were Timberlake. Boy band guys seem so trustworthy to me.

[SteveD]

really? i mean i put it there because thats something that the band would say. \


holy shit, this is why i hate music message boards.

Yeah you have to pick your battles here hahah.

[SanePsychotic]

Yeah you have to pick your battles here hahah.

It's only because we get tired of saying the same thing over and over. We here at AP are very much against the 3 Rs (repetition, redundancy, repetition).

[SteveD]

It's only because we get tired of saying the same thing over and over. We here at AP are very much against the 3 Rs (repetition, redundancy, repetition).

I know I agree, hence the battle picking.

[SanePsychotic]

I know I agree, hence the battle picking.

Just really making a statement to make it seem like we're not a bunch of jerks, you know? Make it seem like we have method behind our madness.

I don't know you. Hi. :wave:

[SteveD]

Just really making a statement to make it seem like we're not a bunch of jerks, you know? Make it seem like we have method behind our madness.

I don't know you. Hi. :wave:

I don't know you either. Hi I'm Steve. That would have been impossible to know though hahaha.

[absolutecrunk]

Who is JT, and why is it not Justin Timberlake?
the equally sexy JT Woodruff from Hawthorne Heights.

[Getup and Dance]

the equally sexy JT Woodruff from Hawthorne Heights.

He doesn't bring sexy back.

[SanePsychotic]

I don't know you either. Hi I'm Steve. That would have been impossible to know though hahaha.

Woah, really? That would have taken me forever to figure out! :-d

I'm Kris. Nice to meet ya.

[SanePsychotic]

He doesn't bring sexy back.

He chains up sexy in the cellar and deprives it of food and water. So cruel.

[weeberteeoatser]

I don't know you either. Hi I'm Steve. That would have been impossible to know though hahaha.
Hi Steve from Spotswood. I live there sort of almost kind of.

[SteveD]

Woah, really? That would have taken me forever to figure out! :-d

I'm Kris. Nice to meet ya.

SAme to you :)

Hi Steve from Spotswood. I live there sort of almost kind of.

So lets figure this out either Old Bridge, East Brunswick, Milltown, Helmetta, Jamesburge. hahahah I feel I'm narrowing it down.

[weeberteeoatser]

SAme to you :)



So lets figure this out either Old Bridge, East Brunswick, Milltown, Helmetta, Jamesburge. hahahah I feel I'm narrowing it down.
Hahaha. The second one.

[SteveD]

EB wooooooh! There are a bunch of people from Jersey here. It's crazy.

[EchoPark]

Thread starter has a few good points in his arguement re: the over decline of the music industry.

But I firmly believe that George W. Bush is chiefly responsible. How ?! you say. Well,

It is common knowledge in Washington circles that 12 years ago prior to Bush' presidency and in the waning years of the Clinton era, a cadre of the polictical,social, and musical elite met in an empty apartment building on the west side of D.C to plot the total demise and eventual control of the nation's young people, who they viewed as the next batch of political soldiers.

High on the list of Agent Provacateurs is Toby Keith, who was handpicked to lead the charge.

His God awful mix of faux patriotism,misogynist and racist music was hoped would lead the USA into a new era of musical control.

[SteveD]

Thread starter has a few good points in his arguement re: the over decline of the music industry.

But I firmly believe that George W. Bush is chiefly responsible. How ?! you say. Well,

It is common knowledge in Washington circles that 12 years ago prior to Bush' presidency and in the waning years of the Clinton era, a cadre of the polictical,social, and musical elite met in an empty apartment building on the west side of D.C to plot the total demise and eventual control of the nation's young people, who they viewed as the next batch of political soldiers.

High on the list of Agent Provacateurs is Toby Keith, who was handpicked to lead the charge.

His God awful mix of faux patriotism,misogynist and racist music was hoped would lead the USA into a new era of musical control.

Obviously its a commentary on how the Bush administration is destroying America. :)

[EchoPark]

Obviously its a commentary on how the Bush administration is destroying America. :)


with a little help from Toby Keith

[SteveD]

with a little help from Toby Keith

Exactly!

America!

FUCK YEAH!

[x togepi x]

did you even read all that i wrote?

i put in up as a blog. i tried to make a few things more clear. if you think i am wrong, get a job at a label and tell me otherwise.

oh wait! most are not hiring. yet there are tons of unpaid internships available. wonder why.

i don't need to work at a record label to understand basic media theory regarding new technologies. \

[x togepi x]

Exactly. I can't count the number of times I recorded my parents vinyl on to tape as a kid.

yeah, some of my older relatives have giant cases full of dubbed tapes, much like people do now with mp3s.

[kitti_katt420]

it's already been said several times, but no I don't think mp3's are to balme for the decline in cd sales. Alot of it is probably greedy distribution companies who charge the stores 10 dollers+ for a cd...so in order to make some kind of profit the store has to charge 15-20 dollers. These days, obviously, people either can't afford to buy them much at all or can only buy one at a time. And working in a place that sells primarily music...I still see ALOT of people who still buy cds, and I have talked to many people who say they will never completly stop buying some kind of physical form of music. I still buy vinyl and cds, but I download too. If record and distribution companies want to fix the situation, they really need to stop charging stores so much to carry thier product.

[theguy77]

yeah but typically even if CDs costed like 5 dollars, most the people who download now would still download.

[kitti_katt420]

yeah but typically even if CDs costed like 5 dollars, most the people who download now would still download.

probably. but with so many people still buying cds, if they were alot cheaper, the people who still buy them would buy alot more. Granted, cd sales will never be what they used to be. But if everyone came down on thier prices, at least they could start making money again. People like me who actually hate downloads and burnt cds, would be much happier to buy 8-10 cds for $40 rather than just 2. It would make it seem alot more worth the trip and effort. I think alot of people feel the same way.

[theguy77]

probably. but with so many people still buying cds, if they were alot cheaper, the people who still buy them would buy alot more. Granted, cd sales will never be what they used to be. But if everyone came down on thier prices, at least they could start making money again. People like me who actually hate downloads and burnt cds, would be much happier to buy 8-10 cds for $40 rather than just 2. It would make it seem alot more worth the trip and effort. I think alot of people feel the same way.

thats true but its a big risk, because say there arent that many people like you and me (im the same way), then they lowered the prices and not that many more people started buying more, so ultimately they lose a lot of money.

[AP_Punk]

plan it x sells all of their CDs for 5 bucks. :nod:

and they do pretty well, i think.

[versus_god]

PIX is one of the best labels around.

[AP_Punk]

totally.

[kitti_katt420]

thats true but its a big risk, because say there arent that many people like you and me (im the same way), then they lowered the prices and not that many more people started buying more, so ultimately they lose a lot of money.

Just from the stand point of somone who is in contact on a daily basis with regular cd and vinyl buyers and alot of teenagers who still buy cds, I do believe it would help. As I said, cd sales will never be what they used to be. But at least if they were cheaper, more people would be apt to buy them, and in bigger quanties. I hear so much from people about how they wouldn't download nearly as much if cds didnt cost so much. I totally understand what you're saying, I just don't feel that the companies have much left to lose at this point. If they want to save the record industry(if that's even possible now), this would be a major step.

[theguy77]

Just from the stand point of somone who is in contact on a daily basis with regular cd and vinyl buyers and alot of teenagers who still buy cds, I do believe it would help. As I said, cd sales will never be what they used to be. But at least if they were cheaper, more people would be apt to buy them, and in bigger quanties. I hear so much from people about how they wouldn't download nearly as much if cds didnt cost so much. I totally understand what you're saying, I just don't feel that the companies have much left to lose at this point. If they want to save the record industry(if that's even possible now), this would be a major step.

but how much do you lower the prices? just a few dollars wont make an impact but if you cut them to less than half i mean how do you make up for all that?

[kitti_katt420]

but how much do you lower the prices? just a few dollars wont make an impact but if you cut them to less than half i mean how do you make up for all that?

They are still making a killing by charging the stores $5. cds arent at all expensive to make.

[AP_Punk]

mmhm. just ask chris clavin.

[versus_god]

Ask Jeff Rosenstock.

[AP_Punk]

jeff wears birkenstocks

[Until The Bombs]

it's already been said several times, but no I don't think mp3's are to balme for the decline in cd sales. Alot of it is probably greedy distribution companies who charge the stores 10 dollers+ for a cd...so in order to make some kind of profit the store has to charge 15-20 dollers. These days, obviously, people either can't afford to buy them much at all or can only buy one at a time. And working in a place that sells primarily music...I still see ALOT of people who still buy cds, and I have talked to many people who say they will never completly stop buying some kind of physical form of music. I still buy vinyl and cds, but I download too. If record and distribution companies want to fix the situation, they really need to stop charging stores so much to carry thier product.

CDs are cheaper than they have ever been.

[versus_god]

he's got a tie-dyed Rancid shirt.

[kitti_katt420]

CDs are cheaper than they have ever been.

I remember when a brand new cd was $9.99 regular price, with sales on top of them making them between 6-8 dollers. You rarely see that now.

[x togepi x]

at corporate chains you rarely see that, but i've seen 9.99-10.99 cds all the time at the record stores i go to.

[theguy77]

at corporate chains you rarely see that, but i've seen 9.99-10.99 cds all the time at the record stores i go to.

ahha, best buy sells them for that price. and for a technology superstore where music isnt the focus, their selection is damn good.

[x togepi x]

ahha, best buy sells them for that price. and for a technology superstore where music isnt the focus, their selection is damn good.

best buy's selection is terrible.

[theguy77]

They are still making a killing by charging the stores $5. cds arent at all expensive to make.

they are making a killing on cds alone, yes, but the record label does more than just sell records. they need to make MORE of a killing to cover the expenses of all the bands they support and studios they own and agents they employ etc. etc.

[theguy77]

best buy's selection is terrible.

dude its not an indie record store, their competition is like walmart and target. at least best buy doesnt restrict their sales to only whats put out by major labels. given that my taste features some of the most popular bands that arent in the mainstream, i can find almost everything im into at best buy.

[x togepi x]

dude its not an indie record store, their competition is like walmart and target. at least best buy doesnt restrict their sales to only whats put out by major labels. given that my taste features some of the most popular bands that arent in the mainstream, i can find almost everything im into at best buy.

You like mainstream music. You just don't necessarily like popular mainstream music. I could list tons of my favorite bands who will never make it into best buy. not a whole lot of dischord shit there besides fugazi. not a lot of touch and go either. it's mostly mainstream, with a small attempt to cater to a bigger crowd.


and i'm just saying, it's got a horrible selection. i'm well aware that it's not a real record store. the place i'm talking about barely counts as a real record store anyway.

[theguy77]

You like mainstream music. You just don't necessarily like popular mainstream music. I could list tons of my favorite bands who will never make it into best buy. not a whole lot of dischord shit there besides fugazi. not a lot of touch and go either. it's mostly mainstream, with a small attempt to cater to a bigger crowd.

and i'm just saying, it's got a horrible selection. i'm well aware that it's not a real record store. the place i'm talking about barely counts as a real record store anyway.

well since you always take me down for using supposedly trivial buzzwords, im going to ask you what mainstream means when you use it.

[x togepi x]

well since you always take me down for using supposedly trivial buzzwords, im going to ask you what mainstream means when you use it.

not underground.

if you're claiming that mainstream is a meaningless buzzword, then you, like always, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[IWasaCamera]

Best Buy's selection is not good.

[theguy77]

not underground.

if you're claiming that mainstream is a meaningless buzzword, then you, like always, you have no idea what you're talking about.

its not that simple. its more like the same rhetoric you ALWAYS have -- its parameters are so subjective that it can mean anything, therefore without a specific meaning it is, in truth, meaningless.

and i could have just accepted your layman's terms "not underground" to explain to me very clearly what mainstream means. but i decided i might try out your debate tactics instead, and manipulate the contexts of what you are saying, and dance around the points you make, until you look like you're not making any sense.

[Until The Bombs]

I remember when a brand new cd was $9.99 regular price, with sales on top of them making them between 6-8 dollers. You rarely see that now.

At big box stores you still do for the first week of release. Besides, I remember when CDs were closer to twenty dollars.

[x togepi x]

its not that simple. its more like the same rhetoric you ALWAYS have -- its parameters are so subjective that it can mean anything, therefore without a specific meaning it is, in truth, meaningless.

too bad that mainstream was a term that you started using first in this thread, implying that it does have some sort of meaning (since you compared best buy's "not mainstreamness" to a store that would only care major label releases) which is something that i've never done here.

underground is, and always has been, defined in its relationship to mainstream much like darkness is defined as its relationship to lightness as in "not light".

just because you don't understand my methods doesn't render them "subjective", "meaningless", "irrelevant", or anything else.

[theguy77]

too bad that mainstream was a term that you started using first in this thread, implying that it does have some sort of meaning (since you compared best buy's "not mainstreamness" to a store that would only care major label releases) which is something that i've never done here.

you did imply it had a meaning when you retorted that my bands ARE mainstream. clearly youve defined them as such and i questioned your definition.

underground is, and always has been, defined in its relationship to mainstream much like darkness is defined as its relationship to lightness as in "not light".

not a good example. people call a room dark if they have any difficulty seeing, but that varies form person to person and in almost all cases the room still contains a significant amount of photons and is never simply a complete vacuum of light. similarly, the relationship between mainstream and underground is quite perspective-based. i view the bands i listen to as not being mainstream because though popular, they are still not advertised on any large scale form of media, and as a result they are only known about by, id guess, a quarter of modern american teenagers, and only enjoyed by a quarter of THAT number. that dwindles down to less than 7% of american teenagers, not even counting american adults or people worldwide in less media-driven countries. oh but it's mainstream. yes this number is based off of a guess but like i said the parameters of what is mainsream and what is underground are based on perspective.

just because you don't understand my methods doesn't render them "subjective", "meaningless", "irrelevant", or anything else.

exactly what i had attempted to convey to you in our last argument. you're not immune to the hypocrisy you so frequently point out in other people.

[x togepi x]

you did imply it had a meaning when you retorted that my bands ARE mainstream. clearly youve defined them as such and i questioned your definition.

which is why i replied "not underground". they're not static fucking terms. in ten years, skramz could be the most popular music in the world (i doubt it), but then it'd cease being underground. the definitions are defined purely in relation to each other.

not a good example. people call a room dark if they have any difficulty seeing, but that varies form person to person and in almost all cases the room still contains a significant amount of photons and is never simply a complete vacuum of light.

it is defined as a perceptual lack of light. it doesn't matter if light might exist in the room in some small amount, it is still defined as a situation lacking light. and you're right, what counts as light and dark might be subjective to each person but the words light and dark have objective meanings. that's pretty easy to understand.

similarly, the relationship between mainstream and underground is quite perspective-based. i view the bands i listen to as not being mainstream because though popular, they are still not advertised on any large scale form of media, and as a result they are only known about by, id guess, a quarter of modern american teenagers, and only enjoyed by a quarter of THAT number.

no it's not. this whole scene you buy into is a subset of the mainstream. you just lack perception because you're not a member of the underground. the bands you listen to has a chance at making it because they are pop rock. they just haven't done it yet. they still play mainstream music, they're just not as successful at it.


exactly what i had attempted to convey to you in our last argument. you're not immune to the hypocrisy you so frequently point out in other people.

not at all, as you were using buzzwords that have no meaning, which you couldn't define or explain after i questioned it, where as i have explained the relationship between mainstream and underground. no hypocrisy here. you just don't know what you're talking about, as usual.

[theguy77]

which is why i replied "not underground". they're not static fucking terms. in ten years, skramz could be the most popular music in the world (i doubt it), but then it'd cease being underground. the definitions are defined purely in relation to each other.

okay cool. its still based on perspective and your perspective isnt superior just because your music taste is appreciated by fewer people than me, your perspective just has more limited parameters. hah, look at taht, ive conjured up another buzzword. parameters.

it is defined as a perceptual lack of light. it doesn't matter if light might exist in the room in some small amount, it is still defined as a situation lacking light. and you're right, what counts as light and dark might be subjective to each person but the words light and dark have objective meanings. that's pretty easy to understand.

it is easy to understand but its just so much more fun to make it look like they have subjective and therefore trivial meanings. you would know that wouldnt you?

no it's not. this whole scene you buy into is a subset of the mainstream. you just lack perception because you're not a member of the underground. the bands you listen to has a chance at making it because they are pop rock. they just haven't done it yet. they still play mainstream music, they're just not as successful at it.

mainstream isnt a "static fucking term", as you would put it. the music isnt mainstream unless its appreciated by a hefty percentage of people, which it isnt. hefty number of people sure but that makes it popular, not mainstream. but why am i splitting hairs here, im obivously just throwing out buzzwords that dont mean anything and rambling without a point, right? now its your turn to make it look that way. isnt this fun?

not at all, as you were using buzzwords that have no meaning, which you couldn't define or explain after i questioned it, where as i have explained the relationship between mainstream and underground. no hypocrisy here. you just don't know what you're talking about, as usual.

i explained the buzzwords quite clearly, in "laymans terms", and since you couldnt even recognize those that theoretically makes you less comprehensive than a layman, so wouldnt that mean its you who usually doesnt know what hes talking about? just speaking in theory here, like you always do.

[EchoPark]

cd's cost all of about 50c to make

[ForeverDelayed]

cd's cost all of about 50c to make
And the average band gets less than that for each CD they sell.

I think we're really moving to a place where the music industry as we know it is becoming obsolete. Record labels aren't making money, but it has very little to do with mp3's or the quality of music they offer. It has to do with outdated business models and shitty trend-hopping and a fickle public that was raised on sound-bytes and lowest common denominator crap. You could sell CD's for $5 a pop and most people still wouldn't buy a whole lot more than they already do. You could promote the hell out of your up-and-coming bands and they still wouldn't break into the mainstream without being in the right place at the right time. That's just the nature of the business, and for the most part it's always been this way. It's just that nowadays the economy sucks so much and technology is moving so fast that we notice these things a lot more than we did in the past. Radio and MTV have almost always been crap, the best bands have almost never sold enough records to pay their bills, music has always been overpriced, and people have always found ways to get it for free. Today's Disney crap is yesterday's Partridge Family, filesharing is the new mix tape, and starving artists are still starving. The one bright spot is that more and more bands are waking up to this and realizing that if they think outside of the box it will often pay off. With big name bands like Radiohead and NIN giving away free music, with a million websites that have streaming audio and free legal downloads, with a ton of labels going internet only, and with technology advancing so much that just about anyone can produce a high quality product out of their bedroom, I think we're moving to a place where record labels will all but cease to exist and no one will really mind it at all.

[EchoPark]

And the average band gets less than that for each CD they sell.

I think we're really moving to a place where the music industry as we know it is becoming obsolete. Record labels aren't making money, but it has very little to do with mp3's or the quality of music they offer. It has to do with outdated business models and shitty trend-hopping and a fickle public that was raised on sound-bytes and lowest common denominator crap. You could sell CD's for $5 a pop and most people still wouldn't buy a whole lot more than they already do. You could promote the hell out of your up-and-coming bands and they still wouldn't break into the mainstream without being in the right place at the right time. That's just the nature of the business, and for the most part it's always been this way. It's just that nowadays the economy sucks so much and technology is moving so fast that we notice these things a lot more than we did in the past. Radio and MTV have almost always been crap, the best bands have almost never sold enough records to pay their bills, music has always been overpriced, and people have always found ways to get it for free. Today's Disney crap is yesterday's Partridge Family, filesharing is the new mix tape, and starving artists are still starving. The one bright spot is that more and more bands are waking up to this and realizing that if they think outside of the box it will often pay off. With big name bands like Radiohead and NIN giving away free music, with a million websites that have streaming audio and free legal downloads, with a ton of labels going internet only, and with technology advancing so much that just about anyone can produce a high quality product out of their bedroom, I think we're moving to a place where record labels will all but cease to exist and no one will really mind it at all.


:appl:

[counting_saturn]

And the average band gets less than that for each CD they sell.

I think we're really moving to a place where the music industry as we know it is becoming obsolete. Record labels aren't making money, but it has very little to do with mp3's or the quality of music they offer. It has to do with outdated business models and shitty trend-hopping and a fickle public that was raised on sound-bytes and lowest common denominator crap. You could sell CD's for $5 a pop and most people still wouldn't buy a whole lot more than they already do. You could promote the hell out of your up-and-coming bands and they still wouldn't break into the mainstream without being in the right place at the right time. That's just the nature of the business, and for the most part it's always been this way. It's just that nowadays the economy sucks so much and technology is moving so fast that we notice these things a lot more than we did in the past. Radio and MTV have almost always been crap, the best bands have almost never sold enough records to pay their bills, music has always been overpriced, and people have always found ways to get it for free. Today's Disney crap is yesterday's Partridge Family, filesharing is the new mix tape, and starving artists are still starving. The one bright spot is that more and more bands are waking up to this and realizing that if they think outside of the box it will often pay off. With big name bands like Radiohead and NIN giving away free music, with a million websites that have streaming audio and free legal downloads, with a ton of labels going internet only, and with technology advancing so much that just about anyone can produce a high quality product out of their bedroom, I think we're moving to a place where record labels will all but cease to exist and no one will really mind it at all.


Then who is going to market the band? Most of us would never of heard of certain bands had it not been for a labels marketing. (Though debatable, Im willing to inculde trous as well. A labels influence/push does help bands get on certain tours)

[SamEyes]

OP posted a lot of legitimate points, and I totally agree with pretty much everything that was said.

People don't buy music anymore, they get it free, the people that haven't realised you can download it for free are either the people who don't have an internet connection, and therefore cut off a huge medium which they could have used to find out about new music, meaning that all the music they see is the bullshit in the charts, which they buy because they have no other way of getting it.

The other type of people that still buy albums are the people that want something physical to go along with getting an album, the lyrics book, the nice case with the artwork, a CD for God's sake. But these people are in the minority, and with labels planning to release "online" booklets for albums that are downloaded, soon buying it for the booklet won't even be necessary anymore.

Oh and there are some idiots that buy CDs because they think it will benefit the band financially, which I think we all know it doesn't.

Anyway, he's got a good point, music isn't being bought anymore, downloads are taking over,

Come on, how can you can deny that?

I don't agree that bands need record labels though, at all. Bands only need record labels because record labels still exist, and the competition from signed bands is too strong.

If all bands had a level playing field, and there were no labels or anything supporting some bands much more than others, maybe then we'd see some talent shining through,

We wouldn't have shit going on like major labels paying radio stations to keep independent music off of the air, local bands will get more airplay, if they're good, their music will spread. Most bands in the charts these days are only there because of the money behind them, fuck that.

But until then, we can just watch The Pussycat Dolls parade around our charts, being supported by some massive major label, until people realise that a lot of much better music is around, they just need to find it.

Fuck labels, money thieving corporations most of them, admittedly smaller labels are great companies that do a lot of good for bands, but if no record labels existed, most bands could get by by doing their own hard work, if they have genuine talent, they'll get by just fine, if they have none, they won't. Simple as that.

[SamEyes]

Then who is going to market the band? Most of us would never of heard of certain bands had it not been for a labels marketing. (Though debatable, Im willing to inculde trous as well. A labels influence/push does help bands get on certain tours)

The band will market the band,

If they have the talent, and they want it enough, they'll put the work in, and if enough people like it and the music is truly popular, (unlike pop today), it will spread, and we will hear of them.

Bands don't need labels, in the current economic climate, and state of the music industry, DIY is the way forward for bands.

[livethruthisltr]

EXACTLY

Or across the industry, marketing and artist development focused firms are popping up. they want nothing to do with the rights to your music, but they will customize band specific marketing initiatives to help the DIY band stay away from any label involvement. A band can pay for these services with their first 100 records if they retain full rights to their music. Everything else they make off that is profit on thier investment.

The band will market the band,

If they have the talent, and they want it enough, they'll put the work in, and if enough people like it and the music is truly popular, (unlike pop today), it will spread, and we will hear of them.

Bands don't need labels, in the current economic climate, and state of the music industry, DIY is the way forward for bands.

[ForeverDelayed]

Then who is going to market the band? Most of us would never of heard of certain bands had it not been for a labels marketing. (Though debatable, Im willing to inculde trous as well. A labels influence/push does help bands get on certain tours)
Ever heard of a little thing called word of mouth? Like the others said, bands will market themselves. They have for years, putting up posters and fliers, bringing their CD's to local independent music stores, and these days using the internet. The music world of the future might be a bit more localized, as in you'll have your local bands and your local scene, and two towns over they might be unknown, but the bands that are willing to put in the hard work will be able to rise above it and gain a national following. Tons of bands have done it for as long as anyone can remember. And quite frankly, as a music fan and musician, I'd much rather have some random band add me on myspace or see a poster for a show with a bunch of bands I've never heard of or whatever than to be bombarded with record company advertising that was made in a board room by a focus group.

[weeberteeoatser]

People don't buy music anymore, they get it free, the people that haven't realised you can download it for free are either the people who don't have an internet connection, and therefore cut off a huge medium which they could have used to find out about new music, meaning that all the music they see is the bullshit in the charts, which they buy because they have no other way of getting it.

The other type of people that still buy albums are the people that want something physical to go along with getting an album, the lyrics book, the nice case with the artwork, a CD for God's sake. But these people are in the minority, and with labels planning to release "online" booklets for albums that are downloaded, soon buying it for the booklet won't even be necessary anymore.

Oh and there are some idiots that buy CDs because they think it will benefit the band financially, which I think we all know it doesn't.


I buy CDs sometimes because if for some reason I don't have my computer or ipod or whatever anymore, I'll have the physical copy and won't have to look for a million links to albums to download all my music again. :shrug:

[thesafeword]

I find it fucking hilarious and somewhat scary that somebody can think like that.

[nikaidoh]

are you kidding me? i'm going to pretend you didn't say that. do some fucking research.



and yet.......we still have a music industry that is still screwing artists over

[SamEyes]

I find it fucking hilarious and somewhat scary that somebody can think like that.

Think like what?

[x togepi x]

okay cool. its still based on perspective and your perspective isnt superior just because your music taste is appreciated by fewer people than me, your perspective just has more limited parameters. hah, look at taht, ive conjured up another buzzword. parameters.

wow. i don't think you've ever missed the point more than you did in this thread. my perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people who like a band, it has to do with whether or not people are into a genre in a shallow way, which isn't necessarily an indie vs. mainstream thing. example: jazz used to be highly mainstream, many people are into jazz in a shallow way, only listening to a miles davis and a john coltrane record.

besides, the indie bands i listen to most: fugazi, sonic youth, black flag, probably have more fans than say anything or the graduate since they've been around for way longer and are way more influential. i'm just saying that if you're just listening to "waiting room", then you're into underground music in a shallow way.

my perspective is better because it has logic. yours is self contradictory: you use terms like "the mainstream" and then you claim that mainstream is a meaningless buzzword. you're backtracking all over the place.

it goes both ways. if i were to claim i'm really into mainstream music because i like kanye west, you could accuse me of being shallow about it.

it is easy to understand but its just so much more fun to make it look like they have subjective and therefore trivial meanings. you would know that wouldnt you?

except there's a huge difference between defining light and dark and the word "substance" which really has no meaning.


mainstream isnt a "static fucking term", as you would put it. the music isnt mainstream unless its appreciated by a hefty percentage of people, which it isnt. hefty number of people sure but that makes it popular, not mainstream. but why am i splitting hairs here, im obivously just throwing out buzzwords that dont mean anything and rambling without a point, right? now its your turn to make it look that way. isnt this fun?

not true at all. if a band sounds like another band that's widely popular, then they too are mainstream. they're just not successful or popular yet. while popularity and mainstream are related ideas, they're not synonyms. say anything and the graduate are mainstream, yet they're not all over the place. why? they share many stylistic similarities with fall out boy and whiny pop punk.

i explained the buzzwords quite clearly, in "laymans terms", and since you couldnt even recognize those that theoretically makes you less comprehensive than a layman, so wouldnt that mean its you who usually doesnt know what hes talking about? just speaking in theory here, like you always do.

when "layman's terms" are terms that don't mean anything, they should be critiqued. mainstream and underground have specific meanings related to music's place in a culture.

the difference between what you're what you're doing and what i do to you is that you're basically just doing a shallow recreation of what i did. i pretty much explained why your terms meant nothing. you're just sitting here claiming mine don't.

[chipdip18]

Oh you two.

[thesafeword]

All they do is argue.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

All they do is argue.

I'm going to the wedding.

[x togepi x]

yeah that won't work because he thinks effeminate males are horrible and pushing their lifestyle on him.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

yeah that won't work because he thinks effeminate males are horrible and pushing their lifestyle on him.

Didn't you learn in kindergarten that the kid who pushed you and pulled your hair really likes you?

[x togepi x]

i was fat in kindergarten. nobody liked me.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

i was fat in kindergarten. nobody liked me.

More cushion for the pushin my man.

[x togepi x]

dude, elementary school kids are shallow as fuck.

[thesafeword]

dude, elementary school kids are shallow as fuck.
You probably just had cooties.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

dude, elementary school kids are shallow as fuck.

This is an honest question: was it hard finding a boyfriend when you were younger? I have a few gay friends, but none of them really came out until senior year. One did, but there were literally no other gay guys.

If that's offensive or too personal in anyway, no worries.

[x togepi x]

This is an honest question: was it hard finding a boyfriend when you were younger? I have a few gay friends, but none of them really came out until senior year. One did, but there were literally no other gay guys.

If that's offensive or too personal in anyway, no worries.

well since i'm bi, i pretty much stuck with girls until college. but our school was probably a lot like yours in that sense.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

well since i'm bi, i pretty much stuck with girls until college. but our school was probably a lot like yours in that sense.

Oh snap, I thought you were strictly guys. I have tons of these questions, but I'll give it a rest for now.

[x togepi x]

Oh snap, I thought you were strictly guys. I have tons of these questions, but I'll give it a rest for now.

haha no. but i mean with homophobia being what it is, it's pretty much the same in many people's eyes.

and answering questions isn't really a big deal to me.

[theguy77]

wow. i don't think you've ever missed the point more than you did in this thread. my perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people who like a band, it has to do with whether or not people are into a genre in a shallow way, which isn't necessarily an indie vs. mainstream thing. example: jazz used to be highly mainstream, many people are into jazz in a shallow way, only listening to a miles davis and a john coltrane record.

you're still making a stupid assumption. "oh i call my music indie so i must like it for a shallow reason, and not because saying indie makes me feel cool." what fucking sense does that make and how likely is it that it even applies to half the people who call the music indie?

besides, the indie bands i listen to most: fugazi, sonic youth, black flag, probably have more fans than say anything or the graduate since they've been around for way longer and are way more influential. i'm just saying that if you're just listening to "waiting room", then you're into underground music in a shallow way.

"i havent been exposed that much underground music, so that automatically means i listen to it without genuinely enjoying it." again, no fucking sense.

my perspective is better because it has logic. yours is self contradictory: you use terms like "the mainstream" and then you claim that mainstream is a meaningless buzzword. you're backtracking all over the place.

no, im mocking you. isnt that obvious? if it isnt then you have no right to insult my intelligence.

it goes both ways. if i were to claim i'm really into mainstream music because i like kanye west, you could accuse me of being shallow about it.

but still the people on this site saying they like indie music typically enjoy a solid number of bands on indie labels. your point would have far more basis behind it if you viewed indie as a sound-based genre but you dont so, again, it makes no fucking sense.

except there's a huge difference between defining light and dark and the word "substance" which really has no meaning.[/qute]




not true at all. if a band sounds like another band that's widely popular, then they too are mainstream. they're just not successful or popular yet. while popularity and mainstream are related ideas, they're not synonyms. say anything and the graduate are mainstream, yet they're not all over the place. why? they share many stylistic similarities with fall out boy and whiny pop punk.

i just said that popular and mainstream are not synonyms, i said say anything and the graudate were fairly popular but not mainstream.

when "layman's terms" are terms that don't mean anything, they should be critiqued. mainstream and underground have specific meanings related to music's place in a culture.

you still dont know what layman's terms means, lol. substance is not a layman's term, the words i used to describe substance were layman's terms. as such, they were very simple, direct, to the point, and understandable, but every time you disregarded what i was saying thus making you more fucking ignorant than a layman.

the difference between what you're what you're doing and what i do to you is that you're basically just doing a shallow recreation of what i did. i pretty much explained why your terms meant nothing. you're just sitting here claiming mine don't.

you didnt explain anything conclusively, you just put the words i used in a context where they would look like they made no sense and then proceeded to ignore any explanation of the words, but you dont have free reign to just erase the meaning of terms that are widely used to explain specific characteristics of music. here is your debate tactic, i say "i like this band because _______" and you say "well _____ is subjective, which means it can mean anything, and since it doesnt have a specific meaning, it really means nothing. therefore your opinion is invalid. hey mom look how good i am at trolling!"

yeah that won't work because he thinks effeminate males are horrible and pushing their lifestyle on him.

uh, hyperbole much? you obviously havent been updating the thread. i was saying that if guys dont naturally develop to act like women, but feel they should because of their sexual orientation, then thats creating a dishonest persona, but if they naturally turn out that way theres nothing wrong with it.

[thesafeword]

And it continues...

[theguy77]

All they do is argue.

all he does is try to argue your opinions away like he can just logically erase any preference somebody has. excuse me for not tolerating his objectivity, assumptive nature, superiority complex, and irrational, pointless debate tactics.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

haha no. but i mean with homophobia being what it is, it's pretty much the same in many people's eyes.

and answering questions isn't really a big deal to me.

Truth man, I'm not down with homophobes, one of my friends openly had a crush on me in high school and we just kind of joked about it because we knew nothing would happen and that it was just a physical attraction. Although I am pretty bad at saying derogatory words out of context. "That's gay" or if someone pisses me off I use F*gg*t. I don't mean any offense when I do this.

So that's my first question: Does it offend you when that term is used out of it's context knowing that it is meant as an offense to homosexual or bisexual behavior, but in the context of the conversation it is completely anything but that.

And this one has been bugging me for a while. In psychology we studied the nature vs. nurture concept. I've never heard the opinion of an inside source. What's your take on this?

[SubrosaSeductiv]

trolling!"



uh, hyperbole much? you obviously havent been updating the thread. i was saying that if guys dont naturally develop to act like women, but feel they should because of their sexual orientation, then thats creating a dishonest persona, but if they naturally turn out that way theres nothing wrong with it.

Actually, if a male has a heightened level of estrogen there are distinct feminine behaviors that can arise.

Dudes, can actually grow tits.

Also, I learned today in Biology that some species can change their sex. Certain nematodes, sharks, etc. if necessary will activate the female gene if there are too many males present, then they'll get fucked. Crazy right? Homophobia is silly, there is only a slight difference between males and females. 1 chromosome a few genes.

[theguy77]

Actually, if a male has a heightened level of estrogen there are distinct feminine behaviors that can arise.

Dudes, can actually grow tits.

Also, I learned today in Biology that some species can change their sex. Certain nematodes, sharks, etc. if necessary will activate the female gene if there are too many males present, then they'll get fucked. Crazy right? Homophobia is silly, there is only a slight difference between males and females. 1 chromosome a few genes.

shit really? did not know that. that probably proves that my theory does not apply to a majority of feminine homosexuals, and it explains metrosexuals. however im sure there still is a population of homosexuals who play into the stereotype but given that this does naturally occur i dont see anything wrong with it.

[x togepi x]

all he does is try to argue your opinions away like he can just logically erase any preference somebody has. excuse me for not tolerating his objectivity, assumptive nature, superiority complex, and irrational, pointless debate tactics.

like i said, just because you can't understand what someone is doing doesn't make it wrong.

[SamEyes]

How did the conversation get over to homosexuality?!

[x togepi x]

you're still making a stupid assumption. "oh i call my music indie so i must like it for a shallow reason, and not because saying indie makes me feel cool." what fucking sense does that make and how likely is it that it even applies to half the people who call the music indie?

I honestly think every time you've replied to this point that you've been way out of the ballpark. I've never said that people like music for shallow reasons. I said they were into a specific genre in a shallow way, as in they don't know many bands in it, as in not very well educated. I have no doubt that someone who's into jazz in a shallow way honestly and truly loves kind of blue just like a jazz afficiando does, but that doesn't change the fact that one is into music in a shallow way.

like i'm into art history in a shallow way (as in i don't really know anything about it other than how it effects the development of postmodern philosophy), but that doesn't mean that i'm not genuinely interested in it. i just lack a knowledge base.

i'm not entirely sure what you find so offensive with this stance at all. are you seriously claiming that people can't be into music shallowly, yet really like the music they listen to? because that's not true at all.

"i havent been exposed that much underground music, so that automatically means i listen to it without genuinely enjoying it." again, no fucking sense.

once again, this is a claim i've never made. this isn't about how much someone likes a specific band, it's about the knowledge they have of the genre itself. i'm sorry, if you think listening to one indie band suddenly makes you as knowledgable as someone who listens to fifty, then you're wrong.

no, im mocking you. isnt that obvious? if it isnt then you have no right to insult my intelligence.

it's quite obvious that you don't understand what i've been doing here so you've chosen that road since you can't really respond to my positions on any subject because, at the end of the day, i can reduce them to meaninglessness.

just because you can make fun of something doesn't mean it's wrong. i make fun of postmodernism all the time but i think it's legit.


but still the people on this site saying they like indie music typically enjoy a solid number of bands on indie labels. your point would have far more basis behind it if you viewed indie as a sound-based genre but you dont so, again, it makes no fucking sense.

i don't buy this at all. what indie labels, because a lot of labels people here think are indie labels are actually mostly or partially owned by major labels, making them not indie.

i just said that popular and mainstream are not synonyms, i said say anything and the graudate were fairly popular but not mainstream.

they are mainstream. they sound like bands in the mainstream. if that style of music stopped being mainstream, then they wouldn't be, but shitty pop rock is still cool right now, so they're mainstream. they're not popular. if i started a generic electro dance pop-punk band, i'd be playing mainstream music, even if i didn't have any fans yet. mainstream, in this context, is not about how many fans that specific band has, but rather that music's place in society: it is mainstream music.

you still dont know what layman's terms means, lol.

i know what they mean. i think most laypeople speak in meaningless ways. there's a difference.

substance is not a layman's term, the words i used to describe substance were layman's terms. as such, they were very simple, direct, to the point, and understandable, but every time you disregarded what i was saying thus making you more fucking ignorant than a layman.

substance still is meaningless. it's "simple, direct, to the point and understandable" only on the most shallow level. like the other thread shows, at the slightest part of questioning, it falls apart into meaninglessness. i'm not ignorant, you just don't know how to state your opinions in ways that mean something. not my fault that you're not every eloquent.


you didnt explain anything conclusively, you just put the words i used in a context where they would look like they made no sense and then proceeded to ignore any explanation of the words, but you dont have free reign to just erase the meaning of terms that are widely used to explain specific characteristics of music. here is your debate tactic, i say "i like this band because _______" and you say "well _____ is subjective, which means it can mean anything, and since it doesnt have a specific meaning, it really means nothing. therefore your opinion is invalid. hey mom look how good i am at trolling!"

i didn't put them in an odd context. i pointed out how shallow they are in describing bands and pressed you to explain how they work in a functional sense, then critiqued how you did it. They don't make any sense. My examples showed that. You chose to ignore them because you had no response to them and keep whining.


uh, hyperbole much? you obviously havent been updating the thread. i was saying that if guys dont naturally develop to act like women, but feel they should because of their sexual orientation, then thats creating a dishonest persona, but if they naturally turn out that way theres nothing wrong with it.

you think gender roles are natural, which is just as worse. congrats, you support patriarchy and the destruction of women's rights. that's deplorable.

[SanePsychotic]

How did the conversation get over to homosexuality?!

I don't know, but I personally find it somewhat interesting.

[theguy77]

togepi im flat out done with this because all you do, is use hyperbole to explain why the other person is stupid/unethical, dance around their points with ridiculous logic to explain why a differing opinion is logically invalid and doesnt mean anything, and then when someone has a good response for you, you resort to "oh well thats not what i said." theres no sense in arguing with a brick wall. have a nice fucking day.

[SanePsychotic]

Woah, harsh.

[x togepi x]

togepi im flat out done with this because all you do, is use hyperbole to explain why the other person is stupid/unethical, dance around their points with ridiculous logic to explain why a differing opinion is logically invalid and doesnt mean anything, and then when someone has a good response for you, you resort to "oh well thats not what i said." theres no sense in arguing with a brick wall. have a nice fucking day.

your responses aren't responses. they're you ignoring what i said and repeating what you said earlier. besides, if it's logically invalid then it doesn't make any sense.

[IWasaCamera]

Good read.