Hey dude. College seemed a lot different to me then high school. In high school, it seemed like most of the people I knew either didn't care enough to apply themselves to their studies or didn't know how. I was one of those students. In college, some things will change. In the early, base-level classes like, you'll see some students like the ones you described. But they usually don't talk that much in class. You would never hear what you described in the government class in a university.
But, just in general, try not to get bothered by these things. Not everyone will have the vocabulary that you have. Just like you may not have the skills they have. Case and point, I'm a graduate student who got his BA at the University of Washington. In my family, I'm a bit of an oddity. Most of my family, immediate and extended, have not gone to college or, if they did, they didn't get a degree. So, I may know more about a lot of different things than they do. But there are a lot of things my family members know that I'll never fully understand. For example, my Dad, who has worked in the construction industry for over 30 years, knows way, way more about how to put up a building then I'll ever know. That doesn't mean he's smarter then me nor does my vocabulary or my knowledge from college make me smarter then him. We just know a lot more than one another about different things. Try to keep that in mind as you earn your degree(s).
Apparently my opinion that it is bad decorum for any creator (whether developer, director, musician, etc.) to advertise, rather than to just be enthusiastic for, their creations OUTSIDE of normal advertising avenues.
Any time anyone ever says, types, or thinks about LOL Cats (I kind of want to shoot myself for typing that) I get sick. That whole things is fucking odd, stupid, and something that was created by a person or group that I would never, in all my life, ever want to be around, talk to, or look at.
Internet lingo (urban dictionary, Epic Fail, whatever) is perpetuated by more people who I would never want to socialize, talk to, or look at.
There's all sorts of content that I wouldn't consider to be newsworthy that news outlets cover. Case and point; anything relating to Charlie Sheen isn't newsworthy to me. But, some people don't agree with me. So, I think arguing what is 'newsworthy' and what isn't is an argument that can't be won or lost.
And isn't this a bit of the pot calling the kettle black (I know, I know. That's racist)? Is it 'newsworthy' to called out a fellow journalist? Who does that serve?
I played Doom on the 32X around '94 when I was about 8. I think I played Snatcher on the Sega-CD a little before that (which maybe could have been rated M by today's standards).
" @PatriotsAreGod: I don't think there's anything wrong with liking them. I stopped listening to Nickelback after their third album (second for me) because I was starting to notice how all of their songs started to sound the same. But I haven't listened to them in a while so maybe they've improved. I stopped listening to Linkin Park because I grew tired of the angsty-ness. But, they seemed to have improved with age. At least they aren't making the same-y sounding songs and, from what I can tell, writing lyrics that blame everyone for everything. "
Linkin Park had about as much angst as Cyndi Lauper. The glossy, MTV angst is peanuts when you listen to a band like, I don't know... Today Is The Day or even Animosity. I'm not bragging about those bands or anything, they just pop into my head. Nickelback started sounding the same on their first release. All they did was look like a thrash metal band while playing bar slut music. Easy and cheap. I'm not bagging on you or their fans. I've just heard so much stuff in my life that I can't stand shit like Nickelback. "
Hah, no offense dude because I'm not a fan of either band. But I can understand why people like them and I think they've at least changed with age (which is something I wasn't expecting from Nickelback). Plus, I don't think it is exactly fair to call people out for liking whatever it is they like.
I don't think there's anything wrong with liking them. I stopped listening to Nickelback after their third album (second for me) because I was starting to notice how all of their songs started to sound the same. But I haven't listened to them in a while so maybe they've improved.
I stopped listening to Linkin Park because I grew tired of the angsty-ness. But, they seemed to have improved with age. At least they aren't making the same-y sounding songs and, from what I can tell, writing lyrics that blame everyone for everything.
5) Music that follows a formula. There are a lot of bands that follow a specific formula on every one of their albums. There's the heavier songs that all sound alike, the ballads that all sound alike, the acoustic songs that all sound alike.
I think you're talking about a different kind of formula here -- but (on an unrelated note) I think traditional song structure, chord progressions, rhyming schemes, beats, and word-syllable-stress-points (whatever you call that) are good things because they can help songwriters express themselves better by allowing them to focus on just what they are good at (e.g. some people are good at lyrics, others at melody, others at rhythm, etc). At least for me, writing any song would be overwhelming without having what I know of formulas as reference. "
When I say formula I'm referring to over-using the exact same song structures over and over again. To me, it's lazy. I understand why they would do it (that formula got them a hit, they aren't talented enough to discover or use new chord progressions, they don't know how to utilize different time signatures, etc) but that doesn't excuse it. As a listener, when I hear a song that sounds either like a song I heard on the last album or a song that was on that very album earlier on then I get bored. I don't think writers need to do things drastically different but I expect some sort of change between albums or even tracks.
Here's an example (no offense to Nickelback fans):
Log in to comment