I'll admit that "palette" would have been a more artistic misspelling, but palate was my intent, maestro.

Posted by Audiophilander (A) on March 23, 2006 at 22:07:09

In Reply to: "Fine music" is a code-phrase for classical styles posted by clarkjohnsen on March 23, 2006 at 12:52:20:

Speaking of palettes, here's one artistic envisioning of Clark Johnsen's Inner Sanctum; it can't be beat for convenience, ...but damn!!!

In regard to "Fine music" we both know exactly what that means and even if our definitions differ my response gave no indication of it. OTOH, based on your own skewed reasoning you could be refering to the cacaphony of the Three Stooges for all I know.

Note: I'm leaving off the usual smilies on this post even at risk of being accused of animal cruelty when Clark's Inner-weasel goes POP! The reason I've done this is out of respect for Master Johnsen as a wordsmith; after all, he fork-lifted my poorly constructed pallet all the way back to grammar school and he is due some reward.

>>> "I'll have to check that out. By the way, who has so informed you?" <<<

My method: I read a consensus of testimonials & reviewer's evaluations, listen to samples of music with which, more often than not, I'm already familiar, and select my purchases accordingly. So, my posted recommendations are informed by my own music collection and based upon my own personal experience; how about your's?

>>> "Who you sayin' I can't compare red to orange?" <<<

I never said you CAN'T compare whatever you like, just that you SHOULDN'T, especially by proxy. It's one thing to be color blind, another to rely on a blindman's review to tell you what's red, when it might actually be blue; BTW, forget about orange, because your colour 'palette' lends itself more to the tertiary (gray area; shady) when folk's are looking for more accuracy from a personally evaluated primary.

>>> "Anyway a film these days has a longer expected life in the marketplace than most new music." <<<

Baloney! when a film shown in your local mall cineplex can move from a 500-1000 seat capacity auditorium to the janitor's store room on it's way out the Exit and to the Dollar House in as little as one or two weeks, that's a bogus assertion. Music rarely gets a magazine review until weeks after it's release and album sales fluctuate dependent upon a variety of factors which include touring, air-play, reviews, etc., at least with new contemporary music across the board (jazz, rock, etc.). Classical releases, or fine music if you will, has an even longer shelf life and rarely depends on airplay for sales, but reviews in the high-end press are certainly important.

>>> ["it's very important that those shared opinions be informed opinions"] - "That word again... Please, please indentify the source of all this information you have." <<<

My opinions are INFORMED, ergo first-hand impressions of whatever I review or comment on, as opposed to the lazy, hero-worshipping of other's deftless prose. If I excise a comment from or post a link to someone else's review, it will only be to corroborate my own clearly stated personal evaluation. If there has EVER been an exception to this, and I don't recall there ever having been one, I would go out of my way to make sure that everyone would know that I'd yet to see the film in question and could not verify the accuracy of the reviewer's impressions.

Do I make mistakes? Sure, and some may not be pallet-able, but they are MY mistakes and no one else's!

>>> "["As you should know by now, I'm not opposed to the sharing of reviews of others as long those opinions accurately reflect the FIRST-HAND opinions of the poster."] - "Now THAT is such bull." <<<

Do you require proof? Here's a post from December of last year where I addressed this very subject:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Reply to: The question was: "What MOVIES with CGI effects [have you] seen this winter?" posted by clarkjohnsen on December 28, 2005 at 12:47:23:

What do I have to do, hand you a friggin' Aztek calendar and request that you check the stars alignments against Peter Jackson's sacrificed entrails before being granted a direct, unnuanced response?

My ONLY point in all of these discussions is that you've relied (ONCE AGAIN) on a second hand review (Duncan Shepherd) to diss a film that you apparently haven't seen (King Kong). If you've seen the film, then why not just say so without all the evasive crap? Since you make every effort to not go on record, it looks to me like you see nothing wrong with linking critical opinions for public consumption when you yourself are uninformed, and there's the rub.

Analogy time: It's like a certain politician telling the American people that there were WMDs in Iraq in order to get support for a war. He lacked personal knowledge and relied on a critic of Saddam's government just like you lack personal knowledge about a movie and have chosen to link the opinion of a critic you favor even though you have no basis to criticize the film yourself.

Now if you have seen Kong, just say "yes, I've seen this film" and post YOUR own opinions. Then link whichever critical reviews you choose that are in agreement with your POV and open the topic for discussion. That's easy enough isn't it? To do anything else is deceitful, IMHO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> "["Without that caveat, there is a strong liklihood that the reader will be mislead into avoiding a film thinking that the cut'n pasted critic's opinion is a first-hand testimonial."] - "Quelle horreur!" <<<

You might have a point there, if by QUELLE HORREUR you're refering to one of Victor or patrick's grey poupon slathered French pastries!

>>> "Guess you figure most people can't read right, huh?" <<<

Reading isn't a problem, it's learning to read weaseleze that wastes a lot of time!

>>> "["You're an intelligent guy; you should know this by now."] - "Enough with the patronizing already." <<<

Well, nobody's perfect; I could've been wrong on both counts.

>>> "['Forbidden?'] - "See above." <<<

See what? I forbade nothing, but sadly, my admonishments seem to have fallen on deaf ears and corrospondingly blind eyes! This one is all on you; you've managed to hoist yourself on your own petard, but we both know that it isn't the first time.

FYI, in spite of our differing views, I still respect your writing talent and wish you all the best.

Cheers,
AuPh

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - "V" . . . Our cousins boldy go where Hollywood never dares . . . - mr grits 20:49:11 03/18/06 (14)

"It's rage against the machine by the machine." -- Owen Gleiberman - clarkjohnsen 10:29:58 03/19/06 (13)

No, what is worth thinking about is whether you've actually seen this film or are relying on Owen Glib's comments. (nt) - Audiophilander 12:30:30 03/19/06 (6)

I'm "relying" on nothing. nt - clarkjohnsen 09:14:15 03/20/06 (5)

So, if you're not relying on the opinions of others, then why post opinions other than your own for consideraton? (nt) - Audiophilander 22:28:35 03/20/06 (4)

I rely only on my own observations. Why do you enjoy putting words in people's mouths? - clarkjohnsen 07:46:32 03/21/06 (3)

Why do you avoid first hand observations, unless you have none to share? - Audiophilander 12:00:20 03/21/06 (2)

"Fine music" is a code-phrase for classical styles - clarkjohnsen 12:52:20 03/23/06 (1)

I'll admit that "palette" would have been a more artistic misspelling, but palate was my intent, maestro. - Audiophilander 22:07:09 03/23/06 (0)

Re: You're probably right... - Jeff Starrs 12:25:35 03/19/06 (3)

No, OG is definitely wrong, as is CJ, if he doesn't see this film for himself. - Audiophilander 12:58:50 03/19/06 (2)

Re: Actually... - Jeff Starrs 05:41:43 03/20/06 (1)

Good point Jeff, but if that's the case they're trying too hard to appear hip. - Audiophilander 01:19:31 03/21/06 (0)

That makes me think of... - sjb 11:08:51 03/19/06 (1)

Oh this is good! - clarkjohnsen 09:20:09 03/20/06 (0)

Follow Ups

I'll admit that "palette" would have been a more artistic misspelling, but palate was my intent, maestro. - Audiophilander 22:07:09 03/23/06 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.