BRASSO Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Is there anything "light" about a "bad romance" ? Not generally at the time, but if one has a sense of humor and perspective, sure.. a " bad romance " could sometimes someday be considered funny and light in retrospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Yes, music is of a personal preference nature. Its one of the most personal things imaginable. There frankly is no " right " or " wrong " answer when it comes to music appreciation and musical tastes. You tell us that you like Lady Gaga's music. That's wonderful that you find enjoyment with that. Far be it for ANY of us to be critical of that. Whats up with THAT anyway ? Those that try to cram down our throats the music that THEY like, are usually engaging in a futile exercise. We would be wise also not to try and convince them to alter THEIR tastes in music either. Experience tells us it generally does not work. Just curious why you're using first person plural so frequently? It might be considered condescending (and explain rkfdPRphan's reaction to your post ??). As the esteemed Adm. Rickover once pontificated: "Three groups are permitted that usage: pregnant women, royalty, and schizophrenics. Which one are you?" No attack intended, your Royal Tin of Metal Polish - ness. Just an observation. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvs me sum mello! Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Major - I ii iii IV V vi viidim - I see more "dark" chords than "light chords". Minor - i iidim III iv V VI viidim - (not counting the one chord) - I see the same amount of "dark" chords as I see "light" chords. Just further proving your point. Shosty is a genius. The major chords arpeggiated by the cellos in the 1st movement are intense dark. But the real genius is in how sarcastic and dark the coda of the 4th movement is. D Major chords. Your business is rejoicing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 . . .when your theme for your show is of the same name as a dystopian novel (even if there's "no relation", a lot of people are automatically going to assume that's what it's referring to), it kinda leads you that way. Does the Bluecoats' 2011 logo or description of "Brave New World" actually reference Huxley? The phrase ultimately comes from Shakespeare's The Tempest, which is arguably a comedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) Does the Bluecoats' 2011 logo or description of "Brave New World" actually reference Huxley? The phrase ultimately comes from Shakespeare's The Tempest, which is arguably a comedy. Well, the use of "Brave New World" in Shakespeare is a direct reference to the Americas (the New World) and the settlements that were starting there. The Brave New World in Bluecoats probably has more to do with just exploring new ideas in a drum corps context and being true to what their identity is in spite of the world around them. They are creating the Brave New World... Edited May 5, 2011 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) Just curious why you're using first person plural so frequently? It might be considered condescending (and explain rkfdPRphan's reaction to your post ??). Point well taken. However, if you wanted to be clearer, you might have said that YOU thought that my reply above was " condenscending ", rather than in general terms as well. ( pot calling the kettle black ? ) Additionally, you did try and step inside his head and project for yourself why " rkfdPRphan " took my compliment to him as somebody elses " problem ". These examples also can be considered " condenscending " as it implies that the poster can not speak for himself in defense of his comments. Also, you asked me the qustion as to why I used the phrase " we ". My response is that it had no ulterior motive. I considered it harmless. That said, if the " we " phrase in my comments somehow is offensive to you, then I will try in the future to speak only as "I " and will not use the " we " phrase if I can help it. This said, "I" would like to appoint you the single poster to make sure in the future that when someone is speaking that they speak only for themselves, and not use the phrase " we " when posting. I do agree with you on this point. And I do believe you have the requisite skills to keep us all diligent on this all important aspect of our responses in the future. Edited May 5, 2011 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) Or maybe we should just take what people post at face value. Perhaps posters should feel free to just post their opinions without having them analysed for some sort of hidden agenda. Good advice, imo. ( I'll overlook your use of the " we " part too. ) Edited May 5, 2011 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkfdPRphan Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Point well taken. However, if you wanted to be clearer, you might have said that YOU thought that my reply above was " condenscending ", rather than in general terms as well. ( pot calling the kettle black ? ) Additionally, you did try and step inside his head and project for yourself why " rkfdPRphan " took my compliment to him as somebody elses " problem ". These examples also can be considered " condenscending " as it implies that the poster can not speak for himself in defense of his comments. Also, you asked me the qustion as to why I used the phrase " we ". My response is that it had no ulterior motive. I considered it a harmless. That said, if the " we " phrase in my comments somehow is offensive to you, then I will try in the future to speak only as "I " and will not use the " we " phrase if I can help it. This said, "I" would like to appoint you the single poster to make sure in the future that when someone is speaking that they speak only for themselves, and not use the phrase " we " when speaking. I do agree with you on this point. And I do believe you have the requisite skills to keep us all diligent on this all important aspect of our responses in the future. I really can speak for myself.....but the boss came by and I had to get back to work! Anyway, writing is one thing and reading is another online. The meaning can get, often does get, misunderstood. I saw (read) the post as a 'back-handed' compliment, thus my response! Brasso and I agree more often than disagree on many topics - that's why I responded the way I did. My faith and trust has been restored Brasso.....carry on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Point well taken. However, if you wanted to be clearer, you might have said that YOU thought that my reply above was " condenscending ", rather than in general terms as well. ( pot calling the kettle black ? ) Additionally, you did try and step inside his head and project for yourself why " rkfdPRphan " took my compliment to him as somebody elses " problem ". These examples also can be considered " condenscending " as it implies that the poster can not speak for himself in defense of his comments. Also, you asked me the qustion as to why I used the phrase " we ". My response is that it had no ulterior motive. I considered it a harmless. That said, if the " we " phrase in my comments somehow is offensive to you, then I will try in the future to speak only as "I " and will not use the " we " phrase if I can help it. This said, "I" would like to appoint you the single poster to make sure in the future that when someone is speaking that they speak only for themselves, and not use the phrase " we " when speaking. I do agree with you on this point. And I do believe you have the requisite skills to keep us all diligent on this all important aspect of our responses in the future. with all due respect i must decline such an important responsibility and will leave such duties to those who are truly worthy of such momentous tasks. notwithstanding such abnegation i stand in awe of the literary facility with which you constructed such a masterpiece of subtle yet incising incongruity. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) I really can speak for myself.....but the boss came by and I had to get back to work! Anyway, writing is one thing and reading is another online. The meaning can get, often does get, misunderstood. I saw (read) the post as a 'back-handed' compliment, thus my response! Brasso and I agree more often than disagree on many topics - that's why I responded the way I did. My faith and trust has been restored Brasso.....carry on! I do realize that sometimes its hard to tell if someone that posts something was being sarcastic ( or their post was said tongue in cheek) of if they really meant what they posted. I've made the mistake before on mesasge boards of attributing what someone posted as not actually what they were conveying to me, for one reason or another.( I've also made the mistake of not making myself clearer in my comments too.. and perhaps I did so unintentionally here with you) I'm sure I'll make these post and reply comments mistakes again in the future, rkfdPRphan. So no harm, no foul here on yours. Edited May 5, 2011 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.