Now you're arguing over semantics. I wasn't using shred in the classical sense of the word (style of play); I was using it to describe one that can play unbelievably, insanely, awesome; one that can make the guitar do anything one wants it to do. I can "play" the guitar, and a lot of famous singers can "play" the guitar, but only a few can do what those legends can.

I don't take shredding to only mean this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_7iRZzlSzI Although Steve Vai is also a great 20th century guitarist. I would bet you any amount of $$$ though that Clapton and SRV could play right along side this without skipping a note.

To me, this is also shredding...I call it soul shredding: two legends bringing down the house with a classic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTVUvHiuaGw

And what really pisses me off is that you knew exactly what I was talking about.

Not crashing into the discussion, no way! Just:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_shredding

I used shredding to explain a degree of guitar skill instead of it's technical meaning. When comparing Clapton's skills to Buffett's, I used shred because (at least to me) it evokes an insane degree of playing ability, meaning Clapton can "shred" compared to Buffett. Regardless, however, only a moron wouldn't understand what I meant, and only a moron could say that Clapton isn't better at ripping, shredding, killing, insanely awesomely playing the guitar than Buffett.

Patiently waiting another smart ass comment...Hey Ken, can I have a band-aid. "I think you mean adhesive bandage...haha what a moron"

I said, I'm not in this discussion. I didn't even voice my opinion, just posted a f***g link. So I won't even consider that you remotely think I would be a moron. I work as a professional musician since 1983 - trust me, I really got my shit together. Over and out....

I don't think anyone would argue Buffet's superiority to Clapton. In fact, I can't conceive of a person who would. However, I'll gladly say that technical achievement in music, while obviously enviable, is not often the crux of memorable songs or pieces of music. My generation's fascination with super-guitarists seems like a xXnerdXx thing to me, a science project on wax. For me, who cares how well you can play if you have no idea how to write a passable song? Hell, people knock Frank Zappa for being odd, but he could write songs. Amazing songs, with satirical jabs aplenty and complex lyrics. His playing, while amazing, never seemed to come at the expense of memorable songwriting (besides his instrumental works, obviously). Jethro Tull as well. To me, any artist who can't reconcile their immense talents with songwriting accomplishment are just a waste of potential.

I just took your link and explained what I used the word for. That post was intended more for ken, and I'm not calling either one of you a moron. I just said only a moron wouldn't understand my first message.

I agree somewhat...you have to have both. But those super guitarists are so amazing to just listen to because they convey sooooo much emotion through their playing. But Clapton had some great songs. Page wrote some great stuff and had Plant to belt it out. Beck wrote some great stuff. SRV had some great stuff.

But just so you know who my top favorite artists of all time are:

Sam Cooke
Smokey Robinson
Otis Redding

Arguably the 3 greatest songwriters/singers of ALL TIME.

Semantics is the study of what things mean. It has become such an Internet slam ("Now you're arguing over semantics!") that people forget it is A. an entirely valid concern, and B. sometimes necessary. Such as in situations when someone's personal definition of a word differs greatly from common use.

I would imagine that figuring out what something signifies ought to be a matter of interest for people who come to a film critic's message board. But I've been surprised more than once lately.

Actually, Evenflow, you're dead wrong. There's a difference between critics and directors; really there is. I'm sorry if that doesn't conform to your oversimplified fantasy world of classics and “universal praise,” but you might as well accept it.




I now infer that you recommend City of God as “seminal” due to its top spot in the IMDB top 250, which is also no doubt where you get your defense of The Dark Knight. What's your next piece of evidence, rottentomatoes or box office mojo? Glad to see you personalize your opinions. I remember a time when there was no such thing as “token choice,” and there were things called “opinions” and “taste.” How archaic those words have become. Is that really the only response you have to my thorough explanation of the power behind the Green Lantern scene, for which Nolan offers no equivalent? And hell, what you say isn't even remotely true. Hard as it may be for some of you to believe, I'm not the only one who thinks less of Dark Knight. Mind you, I acknowledge that not everyone HATES it, but a classic? Not if you ask an average Joe who doesn't feel that they need to conform to anything. But hey, if it's Imdb you trust, check out the Green Lantern page and you'll find about a half dozen threads titled something like “underrated” or “not that bad” or “actually...pretty good.” It's one thing to say you like or enjoy a film despite its flaws; that's what I'd personally say for Green Lantern. But calling it a classic after three years is presumptuous and indicative of some sort of....I dunno, generational entitlement/arrogance. Like, this is the Batman of our generation so it must be the best...or we grew up with Nolan so he must have something that previous generations didn't have. It flies in the face of any logical film reasoning, and makes no sense.

Either this is total bullshit or you're an ageless vampire a la Nic Cage:



The concepts of "token choice" and "instant classic" have been around since the dawn of time, and specifically the concepts have existed in the world of movies from the moment the first critic printed a word. Let's not try to pretend that this is new, or that you once lived in a world where no one was swayed by hype, living in the moment, or a desire to take generational ownership of greatness. Come on.



Please. People everywhere -- everywhere -- have been ripping on TDK since the day it opened. Not to mention that you're ignoring the people in this thread who agree with you. You're hardly on your own in your stance on the film.



I'll ignore the fact that you keep switching how much you care about "average joes" and their opinions, and instead point on this: it's possible for someone to come to an honest stance that TDK is great. It's possible for someone to think that not because of the hype or critics or whatever. It's possible for someone's honest opinion to align with a troll-like audience's consensus. If you're simply trying to say that SOME people say they love TDK because they were told to by whatever forces and are incapable or unwilling to think for themselves...well, yeah. That's true. Also, the sky is blue. We all know this stuff, dude.



It seems that you're the only one arguing about TDK being a classic or not. A classic means what? A lot of people/critics/publications like it? Who gives a fuck about that? Someone may like TDK despite it's flaws in the same way you enjoy Green Lantern. Others may honestly come to the conclusion, regardless of the flaws that they may or may not really care about, they love the film and believe it to be a classic to them personally within the confines of their taste. Some of my all-times favorites: Killer of Sheep, Magnolia, Lilja 4-Ever, le Fils...I think they're flawed. I do. Am I wrong for loving them? Does believing them to be "classics" in any way that matters to me something that fails your test of true taste? Do I really have to love Godfather II the most? I think it's a flawless film, but it's not in my personal top 100.

When did I imply... any of that? You seem to have 'inferred' yourself a mite too far. After all, I wrote a review after seeing The Dark Knight on opening night (see the review, it's still on my Facebook in note form), not after I saw it momentarily usurp Shawshank and The Godfather from the pole positions of the IMDb top 250. If you read any of the volumes of writing I've committed to film, you would see that none of my tastes more than peripherally align with IMDb, boxoffice mojo, or even necessarily rottentomatoes (most of my favorite films have under 8 or so reviews to their credit). It's also written about to some length in my personal top 100. I'm not sure what you consider 'personalizing' your opinion, but I'm pretty sure I pass your as-of-yet-dreamed qualifications for doing so.

I think people just react to what they see. The more knowledge someone has of the medium, the richer their analysis will be. I don't know that it's as devious as people trying to disguise their initial reactions as it is someone genuinely loving (or hating) a movie and dissecting it from every possible angle. It's more an embrace of that initial reaction, I think.

I can't tell you how hard I laughed at this. Not only for the cleverness of working in that Cage picture, but also because I thought basically the same thing when I read those sentences. I just didn't have a hilariously clever joke to go with it. Come on, MGames, you're like 18 or 19, right? What time are you remembering? 2005?

I don't mean to sound harsh. I just think people, particularly critics, tend to overanalyze why they like/dislike a motion picture, or why they think a particular motion picture is good/bad. Ebert/JB are generally pretty good about being honest I would say, a lot of others, not so much.
-Jeremy

I knew you'd enjoy this for exactly those reasons. Nice.