NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think it should adhere to strict rules and conform to specific genres, or do you think it should be whatever you want it to be?

I, for one, think it should be whatever you make of it. Music should be free of rules and genre barriers.

How about the rest of you?

Do you think it should adhere to strict rules and conform to specific genres, or do you think it should be whatever you want it to be?

I, for one, think it should be whatever you make of it. Music should be free of rules and genre barriers.

How about the rest of you?
I think music should be about the art, not about the product.

Do you think it should adhere to strict rules and conform to specific genres, or do you think it should be whatever you want it to be?

I, for one, think it should be whatever you make of it. Music should be free of rules and genre barriers.

How about the rest of you?

I completely agree. I have music that can't be put into genres. And then there are things like Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music". I listened to all four sides on vinyl years ago, just to say I did! :p I don't think many people could... lol!

Whatever you like!

Music should be whatever the musician makes it. Simple as that.

What do you mean by rules? Do you mean, for instance, in the 'Pop' genre music can be no shorter then 2:20 and no longer then 4:00, can have no more then 4 16th notes per measure to allow for easy humming, and bass must at all times play quarter notes? Or in the 'Classical' genre you cannot do anything that set Liszt apart from every other pianist of his day, period?

That's a foreign concept to me. I can't imagine making a criteria that music must fit in order to have it published. If it did exist, I wouldn't want it. There would be so little room for variation that after a couple hundred hours of listening to a certain genre you would become acutely aware of the similarities between music and you'd never be able to ignore them again. It's sort of like growing up in Detroit. After a while, you begin to hear each individual piston in a car moving. That's when you know it's time to leave. :)

Genre is useful as a catagorizaion. Without it I wouldn't have a clue what kind of music to expect from a CD when I picked it up in a store, and I want to know what I'm buying before I buy it. That all it should be, though.

*crawls out of huge speaker* Whats that? I can't hear you? Music? Music should be LOUD! *crawls back into huge speaker*

Music should be whatever the musician feels like making it, but if its bad, I don't want to hear it.

*crawls out of huge speaker* Whats that? I can't hear you? Music? Music should be LOUD! *crawls back into huge speaker*

Music should be whatever the musician feels like making it, but if its bad, I don't want to hear it.

Couldn't agree more!

There would be so little room for variation that after a couple hundred hours of listening to a certain genre you would become acutely aware of the similarities between music and you'd never be able to ignore them again.
Are you saying that this isn't true of music today? Other than that I agree with everyone on this.

Music should be whatever the musician feels like making it, but if its bad, I don't want to hear it.


What if it's bad, but at least original? If we assume the modern chart to be todays..... gray, then surely something that is different to it is good at all, whether it's a success or failure? We can not like it, and choose not to listen to it, but at least it's more interesting than the pop-rubbish that occupies the TV?

the 'problem' (music being classed into genres and not being free) is actually a symptom of the 'saviour' (music being free to form any shape)... its this simple:
people make a song, and let it take any shape it wants. at the end of the process, you listen to it and say "cool, ive created a metal/pop/doom/rock/prog (etc) song", and that's where the genre comes from.
to say that some music is un-catogarizable is untrue - if you hear/compose something that is unique, you simply create a new genre... a sub-genre, such as Progressive Death Metal (Opeth), or Post-Minamalist (John Adams), or Experemental... everything is catogarizable via Genre, and yes, i hear what your saying about peices should be free to tale any form they want, but in a sense, composers do have an idea of what they want their song to sound like before starting, so in a way, most peices were composed with a 'restriction' of a genre in mind...

Are you saying that this isn't true of music today? Other than that I agree with everyone on this.

The only similarity I can think of that all of the bands that are steriotyped as 'MTV pop' have in common is that most of them are bland. I don't think I've listen to that channel or the pop divas and boy bands on it for a combined total of 200 hours yet, so I won't say that they don't all follow the same formula or set of formulas. In any case, no, not all music made today (let's define that as in the last five years for the sake of argument) is that bad. I'm listening to an album by Explosions in the Sky right now and I think it's quite good. If today's music is used just to describe the music that preppy girls of highschool age tend to listen to, then I'd say half of it is forgettable junk and the other half is hip hop, which isn't all bad.

I would wish that every musician took to heart what my old instructor used to say-"It's a sin to wanna." You can do anything you want, but you have to have a better 'why' than 'you wanna.' Know what it is you are doing or trying to do. This isn't as restrictive as it would seem. Cage didn't 'wanna,' he was trying to do something specific and created stuff that was just out there.

But music can be classified. Happens all the time, mostly after the fact. It's useful on many levels and people who view it as a restriction are seriously misinterprating that function.

I think it should be realized that a Bach Fugue would have sounded as new wild and exciting to the people of his day as heavy metal would sound to some of us today.
Music is constantly changing and developing new genres all the time. Even Classicle music can't be totally classified in all the same genre. Thoughout history there are many differant forms and periods of musical developement. To limit music to a particular set of rules may not only eliminate some modern music but might also eliminate some of the works of Bach, Motzart and others.

What if it's bad, but at least original? If we assume the modern chart to be todays..... gray, then surely something that is different to it is good at all, whether it's a success or failure? We can not like it, and choose not to listen to it, but at least it's more interesting than the pop-rubbish that occupies the TV?

Let's create a hypothetical world resembling the early 70's. The rules in this world that we care about are simple. Prog rock is the in thing, that is, trendy, and the Backstreet Boys are underground. Let's assume that there is a sizeable intellectual portion of the population that is often found wearing glasses with thick black frames and square lenses that is convinced that prog rock is trendy (Their trendy equation looks something like this: junk = number of albums sold / 10,000. Junk equaling anything over 100 means pretty horrible music.) and that the Backstreet Boys are, simply because their singers don't sound like Jon Anderson, better then any of the prog rock on the Top 40.

There's a problem. Even though the Backstreet Boys don't live up to the status quo, I still think they're worse then any of the prog rock on the Top 40. Even if I don't like prog rock (let's say that I'm into heavy metal), I still don't like the Backstreet Boys either. It's not reasonable to compare a given band to the status quo and decide that the less the band sounds like the status quo, the better it is then the status quo by definition. What if I like the status quo? I'd disagree with my own rule. Instead, I would judge the music by its own merits. If I don't like it, then I think it's bad. Interesting, I think, is part of what makes music 'good' to someone. You've never heard anyone say "I like this band because they're uninteresting," have you? Some of my friends don't think Rush is interesting (God hates them), and I don't think what's-his-face (the pop singer with the pretty face) is interesting. Coincidentially, they don't like Rush and I don't like the guy that flashes his pearly whites to mesmerize anyone that starts to point out that his music is boring.

I would wish that every musician took to heart what my old instructor used to say-"It's a sin to wanna." You can do anything you want, but you have to have a better 'why' than 'you wanna.'

So that's why punk music is so unappealing? Interesting thought.

ok, well i have a feeling that i'm gonna come under some criticism here, as you all seem to be modern music lovers... i have to say that music was at its best in the romantic era (17/1800's), although baroque and classical were amazing as well... since then music has declined in quality, and has been doing so ever since... i can officially declare that it finnaly died the moment th 90's hit, and now we are in the 00's it's as crappy as ever! nothing can even compare to the old days of music.

So that's why punk music is so unappealing? Interesting thought.
I think it's why unappealing music is so unappealing. There is some interesting Punk Rock with musicians who actually put some thought into what they are doing. I don't listen to punk myself, or country or a lot of genres because their tonal preferences don't resonate with me but I don't think any genre is soley sucky or devoid of suckness.

i disagree. i listen to almost all genres and can appreciate most, but some have no saviours, they are just plain sh*t...
happy hardcore/dance
hip-hop (commercialised mtv version of the real thing - gangster rap baby!)
country music (not to be confused with western)
punk (new punk, like greenday - what a crap bunch of losers)
new pop (avril, busted...)
new metal (losers like slipknot... not to be confused with real metal, like mastodon/opeth etc)

Music should have less singing and more music made by musical instruments.

i disagree. i listen to almost all genres and can appreciate most, but some have no saviours, they are just plain sh*t...
happy hardcore/dance
hip-hop (commercialised mtv version of the real thing - gangster rap baby!)
country music (not to be confused with western)
punk (new punk, like greenday - what a crap bunch of losers)
new pop (avril, busted...)
new metal (losers like slipknot... not to be confused with real metal, like mastodon/opeth etc)
But don't you see yourself creating subcatagories to isolate the sucky ones? You might as well have said "Hip hop that sucks, country that sucks, punk that sucks, etc..."

"Music should have less singing and more music made by musical instruments"
couldnt agree more!! vocals/lyrics are the least important part of music, all the best music is instrumental anyway! lyrics are for unmusical people to stop them getting bored

"Music should have less singing and more music made by musical instruments"
couldnt agree more!! vocals/lyrics are the least important part of music, all the best music is instrumental anyway! lyrics are for unmusical people to stop them getting bored
I disagree. I tend to see music as melodic poetry; lyrics can only enhance that vision.

"I disagree. I tend to see music as melodic poetry; lyrics can only enhance that vision"

i suggest you READ POETRY and stop listening to what you think is music

I never thought I would have to do this.

*streaks own thread*

"I disagree. I tend to see music as melodic poetry; lyrics can only enhance that vision"

i suggest you READ POETRY and stop listening to what you think is music
I do read poetry. Why do you have a problem with the way I enjoy music?

"I disagree. I tend to see music as melodic poetry; lyrics can only enhance that vision"

i suggest you READ POETRY and stop listening to what you think is music
That's unreasonably harsh. I make a split decision on this, since I don't like the voice that much and I listen to melody (or lack) more than lyrics I have a preference for instrumental.

Good poetry does not make good lyrics and good lyrics does not make good poetry, which really means that both have their place. Lyrics can often be more powerful than poetry because of their association with music. We are more likely to sing The Times They Are a'Changin' than we are to recite Howl.

Each it's function and place, to attribute an arbitrary value to one over the other is really pretty artificial.

I do read poetry. Why do you have a problem with the way I enjoy music?

I don't know why some people make a big deal out of the way people enjoy music. It's sickening.

That's unreasonably harsh. I make a split decision on this, since I don't like the voice that much and I listen to melody (or lack) more than lyrics I have a preference for instrumental.



What about choral, but in a language that you don't understand, or with no words, just sound? I REALLY like choral, Like Agnus Dei, by Barber. Given that it's just a choral rendering of Adagio for Strings, it's pretty much an instrumental to my ears.

but by definition, can words be music?? the vocal melody can yes, but words cannot be part of the music, its like a film compared to a book... the book is the music, the film is the words: both contain the story (the music in this case), but the book has no images for you to see, you can create it via your imagination... a film puts in pictures (in this case, the words), and it spoils it, as it may not be as you imagined it... lyrics tell a story that is not our own, and when you listen to music, you should be free to make up whatever you percieve the music to be... lyrics TELL you and it kinda spoils it...

punk (new punk, like greenday - what a crap bunch of losers)

I like Green Day. :(

couldnt agree more!! vocals/lyrics are the least important part of music, all the best music is instrumental anyway! lyrics are for unmusical people to stop them getting bored

What about music that uses vocals as an instrument? For instance, scat singing in jazz. Or, when creating a soundscape in an instrumental it's not unheard of to use a singer to just make sounds. I'm thinking specifically of the song Triad by Tool since I listened to it last night. (I would be thrilled if Tool's next album featured 80 minutes of music similar to that song. If they did it well, and I know they would, it'd kick so much ass that I'd have no ass left within 10 minutes.)

In any case, I like music with lyrics just as much as I do instrumental music.

Edit: Jordaxia brought up a good point. I don't know Italian or Russian, so most operas would be a mystery to me. They would allow me to 'use my imagination'. Maybe moreso if I was listening to it on a CD then watching in person, but even if you're watching an opera you still leave quite a bit to be interpreted.

What do you think of operas?

I never thought I would have to do this.

*streaks own thread*

What is that supposed to mean?

What about choral, but in a language that you don't understand, or with no words, just sound? I REALLY like choral, Like Agnus Dei, by Barber. Given that it's just a choral rendering of Adagio for Strings, it's pretty much an instrumental to my ears.
Actually I with you to such an extant that I don't like operas, even modern ones, that are in english. I couldn't give The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat a fair shake because of it. I'm able to understand that it is an issue with me and not the opera, though.

but by definition, can words be music?? the vocal melody can yes, but words cannot be part of the music, its like a film compared to a book... the book is the music, the film is the words: both contain the story (the music in this case), but the book has no images for you to see, you can create it via your imagination... a film puts in pictures (in this case, the words), and it spoils it, as it may not be as you imagined it... lyrics tell a story that is not our own, and when you listen to music, you should be free to make up whatever you percieve the music to be... lyrics TELL you and it kinda spoils it...
The definition of music (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Amusic&btnG=Google+Search).
So, by definition, words can be PART of music.

yes, i was wondering what that ment as well...
anyway, i obviosly make an exception for a cappella music, or indeed scat, where the voice IS used as an instrument (or even a percussion instrument, like in Reiches music for 18 musicians...).

and i am sorry i 'dissed' greenday... but come on - although i respect you for liking such a unique and clever band such as Tool!!

What is that supposed to mean?

I do it when a thread starts to get out of hand. Hopefully, it will recover (so I can stop streaking!).

i think people who claim to like opera's are protenrious... although i'm sure there must be exceptions... i personally don't like operas

but by definition, can words be music?? the vocal melody can yes, but words cannot be part of the music, its like a film compared to a book... the book is the music, the film is the words: both contain the story (the music in this case), but the book has no images for you to see, you can create it via your imagination... a film puts in pictures (in this case, the words), and it spoils it, as it may not be as you imagined it... lyrics tell a story that is not our own, and when you listen to music, you should be free to make up whatever you percieve the music to be... lyrics TELL you and it kinda spoils it...
No, music tells you what to feel directly. To paraphrase something attributed to Beethoven-"When I want you to march, I write a march. When I want you to dance, I write a dance."

A book is not the music and movies are not the words. They are different mediums and have different ways of telling the story. If a movie 'ruins' a book for you then you are approaching both mediums wrong.

Words have inflection, symbology, cadence, and even melody. They are a tool of accentuation that aren't always needed and thus not always used. Using words in lyrics is part of the music just like using the potential of all the other instruments.

i think people who claim to like opera's are protenrious... although i'm sure there must be exceptions... i personally don't like operas
Pretentious. Which is sort of an ironic claim from someone who has such strict standards about what is good music.

As long as the most important reason that the song is being made is *not* money or fame, I have no problem with that song, even if I may not actually like it. Music should be made to express oneself, and to create something that, even if no one else liked it, would still be just as special/meaningful to its composer.

As long as the most important reason that the song is being made is *not* money or fame, I have no problem with that song, even if I may not actually like it. Music should be made to express oneself, and to create something that, even if no one else liked it, would still be just as special/meaningful to its composer.
EXACTLY! :fluffle:

i think people who claim to like opera's are protenrious... although i'm sure there must be exceptions... i personally don't like operas

I don't really care for them, either. I was just wondering.

"Words have inflection, symbology, cadence, and even melody. They are a tool of accentuation that aren't always needed and thus not always used. Using words in lyrics is part of the music just like using the potential of all the other instruments. "

- that's what i mean by protentious

""If a movie 'ruins' a book for you then you are approaching both mediums wrong." - yeah right!! how many classic novels have been ruined by films??
and every time someone sees one of these, they always coe out saying the book was better

and my 'standards' of music are only my opinion!! as is everything each individual says!

"As long as the most important reason that the song is being made is *not* money "

i agree with what your saying, but today, i think almost everyone in the music industry is pout to make money, nomatter what front they put on...

Words have inflection, symbology, cadence, and even melody. They are a tool of accentuation that aren't always needed and thus not always used. Using words in lyrics is part of the music just like using the potential of all the other instruments.

But let's be fair. That's not always the case. Name one anti-Bush song that set out to use lyrics in a remotely artistic manner.

But let's be fair. That's not always the case. Name one anti-Bush song that set out to use lyrics in a remotely artistic manner.
Art is objective.

anti-bush songs may not be artistic, but they're damn accurate!!
but that's another debate...

"Words have inflection, symbology, cadence, and even melody. They are a tool of accentuation that aren't always needed and thus not always used. Using words in lyrics is part of the music just like using the potential of all the other instruments. "

- that's what i mean by protentious
Wait, it's more pretentious to acknowledge that words used in singing can be considered part of the music than it is to dismiss lyrics as not pure music? Are you sure about that?

""If a movie 'ruins' a book for you then you are approaching both mediums wrong." - yeah right!! how many classic novels have been ruined by films??
and every time someone sees one of these, they always coe out saying the book was better
How exactly has a movie ruined a book? Has a movie ever removed a book from the cannon? Has a movie ever desimated all the critical writtings of a text by its meer existance? Have people become completely incapable of reading the book after the movie has come out? Has the text been perminantly altered to take into account the direction of the movie? How has the movie ruined the book, in any case?

If, however, you read a novelisation of a movie you'll find that the movie is better. Because that is the medium for which it was concieved. Different mediums have different strengths and weaknesses.

and my 'standards' of music are only my opinion!! as is everything each individual says!
Okaaaay....

Art is objective.

You mean subjective? Yeah, I thought of that. Art is subjective, but most humans agree that most things that have been called art are art. A song with anti-Bush lyrics would be one of the things that many people would not agree with, and as such it is questionable. Let me try to contrast that last sentance. The painting 'Mona Lisa' is not what I would call 'questionable art'.

What kind of question is that?! Of course music should be whatever the musician wants! Genres are for moneygrubbers and corporate bastards. And as for radio, play the best, most inventive, and coolest-souding stuff out there. Fuck genres. Unless you're a closet Britney Spears fan, in which case I apologize.

*Listens to Vai for two hours straight*

But let's be fair. That's not always the case. Name one anti-Bush song that set out to use lyrics in a remotely artistic manner.
Well, you could start out with they chose to do it in a song instead of a sign/t-shirt/slogan/post on the internet.

a movie ruining a book was not literal and i'm sure you were aware of the fact...
"Have people become completely incapable of reading the book after the movie has come out?" to an extent, yes...

You mean subjective? Yeah, I thought of that. Art is subjective, but most humans agree that most things that have been called art are art. A song with anti-Bush lyrics would be one of the things that many people would not agree with, and as such it is questionable. Let me try to contrast that last sentance. The painting 'Mona Lisa' is not what I would call 'questionable art'.
Art is both objective and subjective. That paradox is probably one of the reasons it appeals to me so much.


As to the Mona Lisa, I personally think it's a vastly overrated piece. Do I denounce it and accuse it of being "un-artful"? Of cource not.

mmm... well, i own Passion & Warfare, and enjoy it very much... but guess what!? i hate to break this to you, but Steve Vai has a genre...

You mean subjective? Yeah, I thought of that. Art is subjective, but most humans agree that most things that have been called art are art. A song with anti-Bush lyrics would be one of the things that many people would not agree with, and as such it is questionable. Let me try to contrast that last sentance. The painting 'Mona Lisa' is not what I would call 'questionable art'.
I would not want a world where we only had art 'we could all agree on,' even if it was possible.

Art should provoke. Even the Mona Lisa provokes-the anti-bush lyrics just provoke in a different way and if they poke you in the ribs then they've done thier jobs. This is important: You don't have to like it for it to be art.

Well, you could start out with they chose to do it in a song instead of a sign/t-shirt/slogan/post on the internet.

So if I put a post on Democratic Underground to lyrics, it'd be art?

I suppose it could be called that.

1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

1. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

But I sure don't think it is. And by that definition, the shirt you mention could itself be art. Also, by that definition, if I don't like it then I don't have to call it art.

in that case, could you accurately argue that something wasn't art? name something, and by that logic, i could argue it is art... can we not draw the line of reason somewhere?

in that case, could you accurately argue that something wasn't art? name something, and by that logic, i could argue it is art... can we not draw the line of reason somewhere?
Am I going to have to Google the definition of "art", or are you going to accept that, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

a movie ruining a book was not literal and i'm sure you were aware of the fact...
"Have people become completely incapable of reading the book after the movie has come out?" to an extent, yes...
There the fault lies in the recievers inability to differentiate the mediums and not the mediums themselves.

Outside of what was asked, how has a movie ruined a book?

in that case, could you accurately argue that something wasn't art? name something, and by that logic, i could argue it is art... can we not draw the line of reason somewhere?

I don't think any person can definitively say "This is not art, and no one will ever call it that." I can say that I wouldn't call x art because of y and z reasons. All those reasons would culminate in saying that I don't see any beauty in it, I guess.

So if I put a post on Democratic Underground to lyrics, it'd be art?

I suppose it could be called that.

The act of putting those words to music would be an artistic act.

!?!? are you some sort of hippie?! some things are definable, for gods sake: anti-bush songs are NOT art, they are just made for comical or factual entertainment... some things are looked into so far... its like music... by definition, i could bang my head off a desk for an hour, record it into an album and sell it under "experemental" and you'd buy it going "wow man, theres so much EMOTION in this, you know??"... some things are over analysed, know what i mean?

!?!? are you some sort of hippie?! some things are definable, for gods sake: anti-bush songs are NOT art, they are just made for comical or factual entertainment... some things are looked into so far... its like music... by definition, i could bang my head off a desk for an hour, record it into an album and sell it under "experemental" and you'd buy it going "wow man, theres so much EMOTION in this, you know??"... some things are over analysed, know what i mean?
Careful, newbie. (1) This is a liberal-leaning board, and (2) we do have rules here against flaming.

i do apologise. of course, i have the best intentions, i have no intention of serious offense... just enjoy a good debate (a little too much)

!?!? are you some sort of hippie?! some things are definable, for gods sake: anti-bush songs are NOT art, they are just made for comical or factual entertainment... some things are looked into so far... its like music... by definition, i could bang my head off a desk for an hour, record it into an album and sell it under "experemental" and you'd buy it going "wow man, theres so much EMOTION in this, you know??"... some things are over analysed, know what i mean?
Well, going back to my first post-no I wouldn't. I would have to know that you knew why you did it. And then I'd have to 'buy' your reasoning.

Art, often, is in the critique. Film had to establish itself itself as an artform through criticism (and I'm not talking about Siskel and Ebert).

And, if you have some solid definition that makes art so black and white, there is a whole branch of philosophy that would like your help.

Are you arguing that if something is entertaining it is not art? I'm not following your distinction here between art and 'factual entertainment.'

And I really don't know what accusing me of being a hippie is supposed to mean.

i do apologise. of course, i have the best intentions, i have no intention of serious offense... just enjoy a good debate (a little too much)
Debate is all well and good, but remember, there is a line which you cannot cross for fear of a forum banning (temporarily or otherwise), and this would be the line between passionate debate and trading insults.

well, are you able to give me an example of something that isn't art?
if art is something, it must be definable from everything else, so surley some things mustn't be art for some things to be art?? (did i go round in circles?...)

well, are you able to give me an example of something that isn't art?
if art is something, it must be definable from everything else, so surley some things mustn't be art for some things to be art?? (did i go round in circles?...)
There is not enough space in a forum post for me to summarize the volumnes of writting on this subject. Look up movements like the Futurists, Dadaists, Situationalists, Surrealists, and Modernists. Or any writtings on the act of turning a soup can into art. But by then you've still come way to late to the party.

Pere Ubu, how shall we destroy the ruins?

The only way we can destroy them is to build new buildings on top of them.*

*people who get that, feel free to correct it-didn't have the text.

Careful, newbie. (1) This is a liberal-leaning board

The liberal mafia here is harsh. If it wasn't for the fact that they refuse to use guns and I've got more then I know what to do with, they'd probably force me to choke on their bong water.

The liberal mafia here is harsh. If it wasn't for the fact that they refuse to use guns and I've got more then I know what to do with, they'd probably force me to choke on their bong water.

*picks up 19th century shotgun*

Who says "liberals" don't use guns? :D

*picks up 19th century shotgun*

Who says "liberals" don't use guns? :D

You've got a budding conservative in you and you don't even know it! :eek:

The liberal mafia here is harsh. If it wasn't for the fact that they refuse to use guns and I've got more then I know what to do with, they'd probably force me to choke on their bong water.
I dunno where you got that! I love butt-kickin'! I don't even need a gun-I know karate.

You've got a budding conservative in you and you don't even know it! :eek:

Nah. I'd only use it if my life depended on it.

If I wanna protect myself, my trusty Oak branch will do just fine. It's about 3 feet long and is very, very sturdy.

I dunno where you got that! I love butt-kickin'! I don't even need a gun-I know karate.

You'll need all the good luck I can wish you and more, unless you happen to be Neo.

I just watched The Matrix for the first time a couple days ago. Now I have to buy the other two and see if they're as good as the first (it kicked ass).

I just watched The Matrix for the first time a couple days ago. Now I have to buy the other two and see if they're as good as the first (it kicked ass).

Don't do it, dude! You have too much to live for!!!

You'll need all the good luck I can wish you and more, unless you happen to be Neo.

I just watched The Matrix for the first time a couple days ago. Now I have to buy the other two and see if they're as good as the first (it kicked ass).
I think you might want to rent first...



(note-input from me should take into account that I HATED the first movie and didn't even watch the other two, just going on reports from fans that the ball was dropped hard)

(note-input from me should take into account that I HATED the first movie and didn't even watch the other two, just going on reports from fans that the ball was dropped hard)

The sequels were a dropped ball of Devil May Cry 2 proportions.

Nah. I'd only use it if my life depended on it.

If I wanna protect myself, my trusty Oak branch will do just fine. It's about 3 feet long and is very, very sturdy.

Conservatives don't just go around shooting people for looking at them funny (Note: this isn't always true. I ran in to a few particularly hostile rednecks in the middle of fucking nowhere in Alabama that I was sure would vote Republican if they had the literacy to fill out the forms required to register.) You're basically a conservative to the max.

Oh, and I think I will rent them. :)

The sequels were a dropped ball of Devil May Cry 2 proportions.
But would you say E.T. the Game for the 2600 proportions?

But would you say E.T. the Game for the 2600 proportions?

E.T. was a terrible game, but it's not in the same context.

See, the original Devil May Cry was excellent. It was fast-paced and furious, never letting up. Devil May Cry 2, however... I don't know what the hell was going on with that. There was no substance!

E.T. is definitely worse, but the problem with DMC2 is that it was a sequel... A bad one, at that.