Unpopular Drumming Opinion Thread

JimFiore

Silver Member
That probably will never happen so it's a moot point.

If it did happen, the guy would be proven wrong and outvoted. Not really relevant.
Like phil said, that's in an ideal world. The reality is much different so it really is "really relevant".

What happened to separation of church and state? Wouldn't that apply here?
Yes, it does apply here but lots of people try anyway. You can talk about creationism in a religion class, a class on mythology or the like, but it will not stand in the science classroom. If you don't believe that this happens, talk to the folks down the road from you in Dover, PA. Do a net search on Kitzmiller v. Dover. This crap happens all of the time in the good ol USA. It is not some abstract idea.

Heck, there is a "creation museum" in Kentucky that treats the Flintstones as if it were a documentary and they recently received $40 million in tax incentives from the state to expand it.

Tell me again about harmless opinions.
 

JustJames

Platinum Member
What happened to separation of church and state? Wouldn't that apply here?
Conservative politicians worked out that religious folk were a sufficiently homogeneous group that could be targeted.

Shortly thereafter, religious leaders with political aspirations worked out that suddenly they were in a position to yank politicians' chains.

This is my understanding of what happened in the US - if anybody else has a better explanation I'm all ears.

Note to mods: I'm trying to understand/comment on history. Despite including both, this is neither a religious nor a political comment.
 

Anon La Ply

Renegade
The way I see it you have two poles.

Some want to hang on to the past because it's gotten us where we are today.

Others want change and progress for the same reason.

I expect it will all work out in the end, maybe after the human population reduces dramatically. The Future Timeline site estimates that around 2070 to be a tough time because the methane under ice will be released. Interesting site - well worth checking out. It looks like some natural selection is coming our way and at the moment it appears that "the fittest" will be the wealthiest and those in the most stable geographic locations. Time will tell ...

Personally, I'm glad to be born when I was. Only complaint is I would have liked to have been in my teens or early 20s in the 1960s :)
 

STXBob

Gold Member
That's just his opinion. Ha ha.

Ask someone why they like a painting or a piece of music? Why? Its because it pleases there [sic] eyes or ears, its [sic] not rocket science.

Using that argument would mean going through every post on this thread and asking them all to explain why they dislike......whatever.
Way to selectively read. Clearly you missed the part of my post which said you can't really argue over purely subjective things, like whether vanilla is better than chocolate.

Of course you did. Otherwise you wouldn't have written this.

But I have also seen the deffinition [sic] of tolerence [sic] or to tolerate as to imply superiority.
If such a definition exists - I went through the first page of links resulting from Googling "tolerance definition" and failed to find it - it's probably the result of an intolerant person feeling justifiably crappy because they were called on it.

Even if that person is a member of Congress and they help pass or defeat laws based on these faulty "opinions"?

You tell me that chocolate is better than strawberry and I'll say "Whatever works for you", but you tell me that the Earth is flat, oil is being continuously produced inside the planet, the universe started 6000 years ago or something else that's demonstrably false and I'm not going to sit there and say "Yeah, sure, whatever floats your boat". I may never convince that person but there may well be bystanders who don't know the reality (and I've been in that exact position before).
THIS.

THIS is the point MikeL totally missed or ignored. Nobody gives (or should give) a rat's fart if you think vanilla is better than chocolate or Ks are better than HHs.

The point is some opinions are stupid, indefensible, and can affect somebody or everybody else. Opinions like that women's bodies have the ability to not get pregnant if they get raped, or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or that climate change isn't happening. These opinions are countered by FACTS, not other opinions. In the case of chocolate vs. vanilla, neither position is factual; it's preference. If you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, a 9-year-old with a connection to Google can demonstrate how wrong that is. It's "I like vanilla" as a counterargument to "The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."

THAT is why you are not entitled to your opinion.

And for the record, Tama is better than Yamaha. :p

ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM!
 

mikel

Platinum Member
Way to selectively read. Clearly you missed the part of my post which said you can't really argue over purely subjective things, like whether vanilla is better than chocolate.

Of course you did. Otherwise you wouldn't have written this.



If such a definition exists - I went through the first page of links resulting from Googling "tolerance definition" and failed to find it - it's probably the result of an intolerant person feeling justifiably crappy because they were called on it.



THIS.

THIS is the point MikeL totally missed or ignored. Nobody gives (or should give) a rat's fart if you think vanilla is better than chocolate or Ks are better than HHs.

The point is some opinions are stupid, indefensible, and can affect somebody or everybody else. Opinions like that women's bodies have the ability to not get pregnant if they get raped, or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or that climate change isn't happening. These opinions are countered by FACTS, not other opinions. In the case of chocolate vs. vanilla, neither position is factual; it's preference. If you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, a 9-year-old with a connection to Google can demonstrate how wrong that is. It's "I like vanilla" as a counterargument to "The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."

THAT is why you are not entitled to your opinion.

And for the record, Tama is better than Yamaha. :p

ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM!
Errr...No. You obviously missed my point, I was agreeing with you. Music is subjective. That is why I kept stating that I don't need to justify my musical likes and dislikes. The original thread I believe.
 

Pocket-full-of-gold

Platinum Member
Way to selectively read. Clearly you missed the part of my post which said you can't really argue over purely subjective things, like whether vanilla is better than chocolate.

Of course you did. Otherwise you wouldn't have written this.



If such a definition exists - I went through the first page of links resulting from Googling "tolerance definition" and failed to find it - it's probably the result of an intolerant person feeling justifiably crappy because they were called on it.



THIS.

THIS is the point MikeL totally missed or ignored. Nobody gives (or should give) a rat's fart if you think vanilla is better than chocolate or Ks are better than HHs.

The point is some opinions are stupid, indefensible, and can affect somebody or everybody else. Opinions like that women's bodies have the ability to not get pregnant if they get raped, or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or that climate change isn't happening. These opinions are countered by FACTS, not other opinions. In the case of chocolate vs. vanilla, neither position is factual; it's preference. If you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, a 9-year-old with a connection to Google can demonstrate how wrong that is. It's "I like vanilla" as a counterargument to "The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."

THAT is why you are not entitled to your opinion.

And for the record, Tama is better than Yamaha. :p

ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM!

Careful now. The forum might have cause to think.

To actually THINK, goddamn it!!

Perish the thought. I just wanna opine. That's enough. I don't wanna have to think about it too.
 

STXBob

Gold Member
Errr...No. You obviously missed my point, I was agreeing with you. Music is subjective. That is why I kept stating that I don't need to justify my musical likes and dislikes. The original thread I believe.
Clearly I did miss the point. I apologize. :-D

Justification of subjective likes and dislikes can be an interesting discussion. I like to know why you might like, say, a particular drummer's playing, or a piece of gear. If I like something else, I might mention why I like that thing.

Should I tell you you suck for liking a subjective thing, I hereby insist you smack me upside the head, because if I do that I deserve it.
 

JimFiore

Silver Member
I like the look of natural finish shells. In spite of their great popularity, I do not like the look of wraps, especially glitter or ones with graphics such as skulls or flames on them. I'm not going to argue about whether or not the wrap changes the sound or is hiding lower quality wood or anything like that. I just like the subtle visual complexity of wood grain. Purely aesthetic. Might sound like dung but I like the way they look. Doesn't mean I'd buy them just for looks. In contrast, a glitter wrap kit looks like a child's toy to me. If you're going that route, why not sprinkle some glitter on your cymbals, too? Maybe a nice oyster shell wrap on all of your stands as well.

Back in the 70s I remember reading an interview in MD with Michael Carvin (I think it was him, I could be wrong). He was asked whether he used wood or nylon tip sticks. His answer was something like: I use wood because wood is of the earth and the bronze of the cymbals is of the earth and therefore they resonate together. In contrast, nylon is man-made. Not for nothing, but did anyone tell him that the bronze in his cymbals is not naturally occurring but is a man-made alloy? Or that nylon is derived from petroleum which is "of the earth" just as much as the copper and tin ores used to make bronze?

Nothing against the man personally or professionally but if you like the aesthetics of wood tips, whether its the sound, the feel or the look of it, just say so. There's no point in trying to come up with some Gaia-inspired quasi-spiritual mumbo jumbo to justify it.
 

philrudd

Senior Member
Conservative politicians worked out that religious folk were a sufficiently homogeneous group that could be targeted.

Shortly thereafter, religious leaders with political aspirations worked out that suddenly they were in a position to yank politicians' chains.

This is my understanding of what happened in the US - if anybody else has a better explanation I'm all ears.

Note to mods: I'm trying to understand/comment on history. Despite including both, this is neither a religious nor a political comment.
I took Larry's comment to be rhetorical. The church/state overlap is really incidental to the broader issue of scientific illiteracy. If Intelligent Design and Creationism are presented as 'science', then a religious adherent elected to public office (e.g. Paul Broun) can use theology under the guise of science to affect public policy.

(And incidentally, it was really the Liberalism movement of the early 1900's that led to the government overreach that allowed for a mingling of church and state. No one individual is to blame, obviously - but a review of Woodrow Wilson's public record provides a great start.)
 

larryace

"Uncle Larry"
Well, I have to do a total backpedal and concede that one person's wacky opinion can indeed be harmful.
 

JimFiore

Silver Member
Hey! I'm a pretty unpopular guy so you'd think at least half of this thread would be about me....

To me, putting glitter on nice wood drum shells is about as sensible as painting barber pole stripes on your horse. I'm sure Madge might have an opinion on that one. Andy, too.
 

Souljacker

Silver Member
I would like to learn traditional grip properly but if I'm being really honest it's mostly cos I want to appear cool.
 

Andy

Administrator
Staff member
To me, putting glitter on nice wood drum shells is about as sensible as painting barber pole stripes on your horse. I'm sure Madge might have an opinion on that one. Andy, too.
I love glitter finishes, so long as they're on someone else's drums. I think they can look cool, but wraps & heavy lacquers really do adversely affect highly resonant shells. On less resonant shells, they make little to no difference, so that's fine for most drums out there.

Unpopular bit: To those who say wraps (finish plies/whatever you want to call a sheet of plastic) don't affect the resonance of a highly resonant drum, go & wrap an acoustic guitar & see what happens :)

I'll get my coat --------
 
Top