 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So much to learn and so little time. So I’m curious. How do you members decide which
FSM topics to read? What are your criteria for investing your time into certain topics?
Mainly if I'm interested in the subject matter -- composer, specific soundtrack or genre, and so forth. It's nice to be able to read EVERYTHING, but even though I'm retired, who has the time? But DID have to chuckle over the comment about posting comments about posting comments! Indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 5, 2013 - 10:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Dana Wilcox
(Member)
|
What I dislike is that some folks believe an old discussion should be revived from the previous thread even if that thread was from several years ago. I disagree. If you have already had your say in a thread, you don't need to go into the new thread and carp about it. People are always changing their minds, their attitudes, about film music. I don't believe in stifling discussion. Some older threads are much too long to wade through.
That's interesting because we obviously have a fundamental disagreement there (and I'm sure you have me in mind, first and foremost). If a topic interests you, it interests you no matter how many times it pops up. However, if you've spent most of your energy and time elaborating on it in one thread, it's some times a bit cumbersome to drag up the energy for that again in another thread about the exact same thing. Yet you care so much about the topic that you at least want to refer to what you've written previously. I see nothing wrong with that. If it had been up to me, one particular topic would be in one particular thread for all time -- and then just added upon. Would make the discussion go FORWARD and not just in circles.
But to each their own. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
I have to agree with Ron on this one. The idea of having one thread cover a topic for all time, with hundreds or even thousands of entries accumulated over a period of years, is just too daunting and time consuming to imagine. Perhaps Thor is inclined to spend hours reading and reminiscing about how profound he was in his pronouncements on a topic years in the past; but that is a thread I would never read. If some time has passed since the original (or last) thread was initiated, and there are new developments and new members to participate in the discussion, let's do a new thread and take it from there. Certainly salient points (of which there are usually relatively few in any given thread) will be mentioned, and we won't have to read scads of dated observations to find them.
If a topic was very recently discussed in detail, or on points of fact, I don't mind a reference to a previous thread to clarify or answer a question. On matters of opinion, a reference to some earlier thread is usually just irritating, and often implies (rudely) that if the new poster had any brains, he/she would have just "bumped" the old thread, because everything worth saying has already been said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 5, 2013 - 11:02 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
I have to agree with Ron on this one. The idea of having one thread cover a topic for all time, with hundreds or even thousands of entries accumulated over a period of years, is just too daunting and time consuming to imagine. Perhaps Thor is inclined to spend hours reading and reminiscing about how profound he was in his pronouncements on a topic years in the past; but that is a thread I would never read. If some time has passed since the original (or last) thread was initiated, and there are new developments and new members to participate in the discussion, let's do a new thread and take it from there. Certainly salient points (of which there are usually relatively few in any given thread) will be mentioned, and we won't have to read scads of dated observations to find them.
If a topic was very recently discussed in detail, or on points of fact, I don't mind a reference to a previous thread to clarify or answer a question. On matters of opinion, a reference to some earlier thread is usually just irritating, and often implies (rudely) that if the new poster had any brains, he/she would have just "bumped" the old thread, because everything worth saying has already been said.
Well, that last part is what you read INTO it; it's certainly not the intention (at least not for me).
Having it all in one thread is very neat, because should the thread be revitalized again, one can easily refer to previous posts in continuing the discussion ONWARDS -- so as to avoid unneccessary repetition. If one's view on the issue has changed since the last post, well then again -- it's easy to refer back to a previous post and update your view in a new post. maintitles.net does this very well, and it's one of the reasons why I love that forum so much.
Also, no one says you have to read ALL of the previous posts if you 'bump' it. You can easily skim it or just post your thoughts without reading anything, and then take it from there. The idea here is one of PROGRESSION rather than REGRESSION or talking endlessly in circles. I've always preferred that in any kind of discussion, not only on internet forums but in real life as well.
But as I said, you have your 'ideology' and I have mine. People who aren't bothered about using the search engine aren't going to start now, no more than I am going to stop referring back to previous threads on the issue for convenience's sake. At FSM, both of these have to co-exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I only read posts by YOR The Hunter From The Future
I know you are being a smart-ass, but I agree with your statement. He has the way to get people fired up. I also share many of my likes and dislikes with him. I am not a lover of "The Zimmer" and I love everything Goldsmith has composed. There are people on this board that if you do not like every single release you are a troll! If you state that you have no interest in a release, you are a troll. If I were a record producer, I would want to know what kind of interest there is in a title. Look at all the Quartet (limited to 1000) and La-La Land CDs that are on sale at FSM. There must have very little (less than 1000) interest in those titles.
This board is so one sided sometimes and there are too many, what do you call it, "ass kissers" it makes one sick.
Kim Tong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am with THOR on long threads I think they are often informative and sometimes later on you just want to sit back and relax for a half an hour and read the whole thing in one sitting, some of my long threads will in timeless style be helpful- ex[pretty genre music, laugh laugh laugh[who was born today] singers composers, etc etc etc, nothing is more depressing here then when a interesting topic just dies with only a few responses. That goes for other peoples and mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding Joan's new question - I would love to admit that my age has nothing to do with my cherry-picking, and that I am open to everything new, forever forging ahead. But it's not the case. I'll dip into new things, but they don't generally excite me the way "old" things do. I was never very good at seeing "history in the making". I'm more of an archaeologist, or a fossil. By the way Joan - couldn't you have started a new thread about that instead of bumping the old one?
To bump or not to bump, that is the (other) question - I'm not too obsessive (honest), so I don't mind either way. Perhaps with one exception - the discussion of a particular score release. When I get a new CD, even if it's been out for years, I'll try to find the appropriate old thread and bump it. I can't think of a good reason to start a whole new thread about it. I did that recently with COOGAN'S BLUFF and MAGNUM FORCE. If the topic is more "philosophical" and there's a new slant you want to put on it, I prefer a new thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I only read posts by YOR The Hunter From The Future
I actually dig the heck out of YOR's contributions, too. It doesn't hurt that we are fellow Jerry nuts. Also, he puts up with the Zimmer nonsense not at all, which I admire, but choose not to personally foment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm only reading a fraction of the posts and threads here, obviously. So, yes, I am cherry-picking.
The criteria:
1. Titles of topics.
Yes, sure. The title accounts for even clicking on a thread.
2. Are you attracted by certain composer's names?
For sure. I like some composers more than others.
3. Does the length of a new topic attract or repel you?
Not really. If the topic is good, maybe it deserves a longer post or thread. However, time may prevent me from indulging in too long or complex topics. But not the length in and of itself.
4. Do certain members attract your interest.
Sure.
5. Do certain time periods attract you or alienate you?
No, I am generally interested in and open to all kinds of time periods of film music.
6. Do you like it when certain topics go on and on and on, or over time do your interests
diminish?
That depends... if a topic goes actually on, meaning that people are contributing, considering, and advancing a subject, it can be great that a discussion goes on for a long time. But if the topic just repeats itself, and I already said what I had to say about the subject (in the same thread or somewhere else), I may just not feel to state the same thing again, nor read the same things again.
7. Do you enjoy topics that seem rather abstract and philosophical or do you avoid them preferring
concrete, specific topics.
That just depends on how well a topic is done. If the criteria for a "list" are actually interesting, I enjoy lists. (Just "5 favorite Goldsmith scores" isn't particularly interesting anymore.) Abstract, philosophical topics, sure, I enjoy them, though you they don't come along very often. Though it's rare that "abstract" or "philosphical" discussions concerning film music come around, and even rarer that they are of actual substance and not just merely self-indulgent, self-important. Often, there isn't much to say about a particular film score either. Reacting to music is a very personal thing, so music is quite hard to discuss in an abstract, philosophical level. Very often, people describe how music makes them feel, which is fair enough, why not? But that's not very abstract or philosophical. Not sure how an "abstract" or "philosophical" discussion about film music would look like.
Other criteria I've not mentioned???
Yeah, sometimes I accidentally stumble upon older threads, and occasionally find it interesting to re-activate them if the topic is interesting and has not been discussed in a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
