Don't do that. Don't you dare sit there and pretend that posts like your last one and your Beatles thread aren't EXACTLY what you are denying right now. Do you really not see the hypocrisy present within this one post?
Again, this makes the assumption as if I post for you. I do not.
But the fact is, you very clearly do care what people on this forum think of you because you would flat-out not be saying these things if you didn't.
Look at the recent thread, despite the amount of mockery my previous thread recieved in it, I played along, however, i responded angrily to Crimson King because he accused me of bringing up taste, something that I avoided blatantly and even went out of my way to distinguish that I no way meant that The Beatles were a bad, good, great, horrible band or anything regarding taste.
Only a few things grind my gears, one of them being people accusing me of pushing taste, when I go out of my way to make others understand that there is no better, right, or wrong taste. Even more, hearing it From Crimson King who does what he accuses me of in many threads is not something I'll let slip by. I will stand up for myself, but that does not mean that I am trying to show off anything.
You did not start your thread cutting down The Beatles (filled with many of the same points you've just made here from what I can tell) because you just wanted to prove they were pop.
No, I posted it in a hope to have an intelligent discussion. The post I was talking about was what he called 'showing off' when that post was the equivlant of trying to show off by reciting my ABCs. Pop is deletued, confusing term with three seperate meanings, and its very common for arguments to start simply because someone is referencing one definition of the word pop and someone another. In order to clear up any confusion about the matter and avoid any silly arguments, I gave the three definitions of pop music, as a genre, as popular music, and as classification.
You did not make that overblown, link-laden post referencing Philip Glass and the Amen Break just because you wanted to prove The Beatles were pop.
No, I made that post to give direct examples of the kind of influence I was talking about, and how it is not ripping off another artist. I fail to see how correcting someone, clarifying, and explaining in full with examples is pretentious. What would be pretentious would be if I simply claimed him wrong and provided no reasons or evidence. That would be pretentious.
You were stroking your own ego, and that is readily apparent because doing so for any other reason is completely unnecessary.
When someone comes on the challenge a claim, to insult me, am I not expected to reply back, and do so with my full ability? No. Getting someone to the truth is not unnecessary. He didn't understand what I was talking about, and so I gave clear and present examples.
ut if you aren't at least going to admit that you are being self-aggrandizing when you make posts like this, then whatever respect I might have had for you can't exist.
I still fail to see what is wrong with post fully explaining your point. Well thought out post does not equal pretentious. I really fail to see the logic here.
"the "correct" way to listen to music, the "correct" amount of praise that an artist really deserves. It is, by design, going to entice people to become combative toward you."
Excuse me? Again, I fail to see where this comes from. I have in no way referenced any sort of right or wrong, I have not said that anyone was wrong for admiring The Beatles.
Importance does not equal great. Influence does not equal the call for respect and admiration. You are greatly mistaking my post. Simply because I fully explain my post thoroughly does not make me pretentious, it does not mean I'm trying to impress you, and it does not mean I'm stroking my ego. Simply because this forum might not be use to someone who explains there points in such a manner in Media Metropolis does not mean I am stroking my own ego.