Modernity Sucks

phil_l wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:00 And yeah consider that as personal attacks if you want, fair enough. The way you attacked HZ on VI-C was irrespectful.

I don't consider : THAT WAS a personal attack that aim to disqualify my action and my arguments.

Challenging or disbelieving someone is not a personal attack even if you feel insulted.

Calling someone crazy, jealous, arrogant etc are personal attacks that aim to disqualify your interlocutor.

Read this :
http://www.modernity-sucks.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3

Ad Hominem attacks are well-known logical fallacies -> http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

Arthur Schopenhauer describes it in the introduction of Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten.

So, I suggest we forget the last "you're crazy" messages and get back to the : "if it moves me, I don't care about who did it", which was the latest ad rem argument on the table. (I can actually connect to this kind of "is it that important?" argument)

I think we can all agree Headshot was a bit rude in his first message in VI-C, but it doesn't explain the whole situation. So I don't see the point recalling that over and over again.

DarkestShadow wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 11:58

Best Retards wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 11:47

phil_l wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 10:30 "But does it give Hans the right to make these guys work his own ?
"

So during the end credits rolls , Hans Zimmer has to credit everybody ?

"Music by Hans Zimmer, Jim Dooley, Klaus Badelt, Steve Mazzaro, Andrew K, Bruce Fowler"

Let's imagine I see an action movie with a score of full Electro Dubstep.
Then at the end credit roll I see : Music by John Williams and some additionnal orchestrators/musicians

Years later John says on a forum "yeah I remember that action movie, I wrote every single notes of the score"

What common sense would shout out ?
"that's impossible"

Ahem? Would that be "common sense"? Not in my book... I can't know it for sure so I would never rule it out. I would be surprised - that's the end of it.

Some people would be surprised, some would say I don't believe you, and I guess that's freedom of speech, thinking, etc.
But disbelief isn't working apparently.

It's not a matter of "true" or "false" (which are not free judgements because proof force the conviction), nor a matter of "faith" or "disbelief" (which are free but unsure judgements). It's just a matter of a probability so low we can call for evidence. The "common sense" invoked here is not "I am sure I am saying the truth without evidence", it's just a kind of "I don't buy it, I doubt it, it would be cool to have some evidence" (even if it has been formulated in a way too harsh manner). We're not on an assertoric judgement, but on an hypothetical judgement. Not the same thing.

phil_l wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:00 ... we will never hear what the guy has to say about the subject. That is, yeah he lied a bit when talking about The Final Game, he didnt orchestrate all himself. BUT ... who here think HZ can orchestrate a track ALONE ? in the traditional sense of "orchestration" . Nobody

Seriously ?



I don't know if you don't understand or if you don't want to understand.

I have been insulted, defamed, and banned for an opinion.

Judgement Day Has Arrived.

Headshot wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:11

phil_l wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:00 And yeah consider that as personal attacks if you want, fair enough. The way you attacked HZ on VI-C was irrespectful.

I don't consider : THAT WAS a personal attack that aim to disqualify my action and my arguments.

Challenging or disbelieving someone is not a personal attack even if you feel insulted.

Calling someone crazy, jealous, arrogant etc are personal attacks that aim to disqualify your interlocutor.

Read this :
http://www.modernity-sucks.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3

From the moment someone feels insulted, it is a personal attack.

phil_l wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:03

Best Retards wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 11:47

phil_l wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 10:30 "But does it give Hans the right to make these guys work his own ?
"

So during the end credits rolls , Hans Zimmer has to credit everybody ?

"Music by Hans Zimmer, Jim Dooley, Klaus Badelt, Steve Mazzaro, Andrew K, Bruce Fowler"

You still don't see the point.
Let's take it that way :

Let's imagine I see an action movie with a score of full Electro Dubstep.
Then at the end credit roll I see : Music by John Williams and some additionnal orchestrators/musicians

Years later John says on a forum "yeah I remember that action movie, I wrote every single notes of the score"

What common sense would shout out ?
"that's impossible"

What did headshot say to HZ ? he didn't believe that HZ wrote every single notes on this movie "A league of their own"

What's wrong with that ?

Don't you see the problem ? Giving end credits as an excuse for ego problem is wrong

I see no big problem. What is important for me is the final work, if it moves me, or if it doesnt move me. What's behind, I couldnt care less honestly!

But I think we should listen to the original mockup. Problem is we will never hear it because of how Headshot acted.

It's not about the score itself and if it moves you, it's about how Zimmer sold his story.
You don't care about what's behind but apparently Zimmer cares, he deeply needs recognition and wants to be seen as a genius in every musical genre, and hide behind the veil of 'All my add composers / arrangers/ orchestrators are credited'
And ... it works since everybody is convinced Hans Zimmer writes most of his scores LOL

And remember, Headshot posted his SW rescore, and most of the comments were free flaming saying that he recorded with a real orchestra and his rescore was a fraud.
He was insulted in everyway possible.
When you look at both sides , there's a problem.
On one side you have Headshot saying he doesn't believe Hans (THIS bothers you because you find this inappropriate), on the other you have plenty of people insulting Headshot for his rescore (this is ok he's no one).

phil_l wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:28 From the moment someone feels insulted, it is a personal attack.

Absolutely not.

The nature of a statement is not related to our personal perception.

An insult, a criticism, a defamatory statement, an opinion etc have precise meanings and precise definitions.

Otherwise anything can be considered as a personal attack :

"I feel insulted by your haircut, it's a personal attack, you must change it"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78OevDyH7-Y

phil_l wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:00
And godfather Hans Zemmer has the power in hollywood to discredit anyone : Hello, Klaus Badelt... who never worked on a major hollywood movie since he sued Zimmer...^^

Here we're starting to see the light

I'll be pleased to know why he sued him, I would bring popcorn too, and also this :

http://variety.com/2003/biz/markets-fes ... 117896642/

True indeed. Ad hominem means you attack someone directly, not the underlying thesis of his words (it would mean all Socrates arguments in Plato's dialogues are ad hominem... -_-" ). Because we can talk about ideas, test and challenge them, finally get to a consensus. Which is not the case if you disqualify someone per se.

He deeply needs recognition ? noo... he's the number one in demand film composer , plenty of awards, plenty of money, did a musical show which sold out in a few days.

And headshot did plenty of good vibes when he did his SW rescore. But again he started to trash modern music and that was the starting point where everything degenerated.

In the topic you mention, the most striking thing was how Headshot distilled the information. He revealed things scarcely, inviting members to guess. Some interpreted it as trolling (I perceived it this way). It created tensions. Members of VI-C started accusing Headshot of not being the real author of the mock-up. The modern music trashing came in the same time, and it absolutely didn't light a match at first.

Again, Headshot wrote in this VI-C topic in a condescending manner, as he does sometimes in this very topic. It doesn't mean it was the purpose. I often write in a condescending manner and realize later it was perceived this way. It doesn't disqualify the ideas either. What disqualifies an idea is a counter-argument or counter-example.

Best Retards wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:38

phil_l wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:00
And godfather Hans Zemmer has the power in hollywood to discredit anyone : Hello, Klaus Badelt... who never worked on a major hollywood movie since he sued Zimmer...^^

Here we're starting to see the light

I'll be pleased to know why he sued him, I would bring popcorn too, and also this :

http://variety.com/2003/biz/markets-fes ... 117896642/

Well it's the music bizness, these things happen all the time! do you live on planet earth ?

It started on Gladiator. For the oscar, only hans zimmer and lisa gerrard were nominated. But Klaus Badelt
actually arranged a lot of musical cues with lisa gerrard , and also did additional music. He wasnt happy not to be
nominated as a co-composer . Hans gave him solo credits on Pirates of The Caribbean 1 as a gift . Still not happy of that gladiator story ( and also
he was having a hard time on POTC1 , thats why HZ came later as the rescue man ) so he sued HZ..
He actually won thats why if you go on Klaus Badelt website, you can listen to all the cues he arranged on Gladiator
And thats why since that day, Klaus never worked on a major hollywood picture. This was a stupid move ...

raphael.badawi wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:45 In the topic you mention, the most striking thing was how Headshot distilled the information. He revealed things scarcely, inviting members to guess. Some interpreted it as trolling (I perceived it this way). It created tensions. Members of VI-C started accusing Headshot of not being the real author of the mock-up. The modern music trashing came in the same time, and it absolutely didn't light a match at first.

Again, Headshot wrote in this VI-C topic in a condescending manner, as he does sometimes in this very topic. It doesn't mean it was the purpose. I often write in a condescending manner and realize later it was perceived this way. It doesn't disqualify the ideas either. What disqualifies an idea is a counter-argument or counter-example.

Yeah thats the problem. Being condescendant certainly doesnt disqualify the ideas... but it doesnt help being on the side of HS

phil_l wrote: ↑Thu 3 May 2018 12:41 He deeply needs recognition ? noo... he's the number one in demand film composer , plenty of awards, plenty of money, did a musical show which sold out in a few days.

And headshot did plenty of good vibes when he did his SW rescore. But again he started to trash modern music and that was the starting point where everything degenerated.

I don't see things like you do, Fame, awards, etc. are part of his needs, but it's never enough, and maybe deeply inside he knows he's not John Williams and he'll never be, but when he can shine with a score wayyy beyond his knowledge, He shows up and starts bullshitting, I see this as pure megalomania.

About Headshot, the rescore itself was a criticism of some aspects of modern music (just look at the text at the beginning of the rescore), but people just focused on "how did he achieved that ?"
He didn't want to talk about virtual instruments, but the general dumbing down leading to a tasteless generic SW trailer soundtrack.