Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Bands, Artists and Genres Appreciation
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Do The Decemberists have people fooled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedDo The Decemberists have people fooled?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314 19>
Author
Message
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 16:01
Originally posted by moreitsythanyou moreitsythanyou wrote:

Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by moreitsythanyou moreitsythanyou wrote:

Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by WalterDigsTunes WalterDigsTunes wrote:

his/her


their

Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well.


'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'.
And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one.


Convenient, but incorrect. You can't modify a singular noun with a plural pronoun. Until gender neutral pronouns become accepted, the best pronoun in this case you be his/her. And you can't blame the original speaker. Walter being illogical, now that's a shock. But he's still grammatically correct.


I have an English degree.  I taught English.  Walter is grammatically correct.  I myself use the pronoun "he" in such a circumstance, and hope the reader is so competent (and not a raging maniac over political correctness) that he/she gets my meaning.


Edited by Epignosis - June 15 2009 at 16:02
Back to Top
Visitor13 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 16:01
Originally posted by moreitsythanyou moreitsythanyou wrote:

Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by moreitsythanyou moreitsythanyou wrote:

Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by WalterDigsTunes WalterDigsTunes wrote:

his/her


their

Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well.


'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'.
And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one.


Convenient, but incorrect. You can't modify a singular noun with a plural pronoun. Until gender neutral pronouns become accepted, the best pronoun in this case you be his/her. And you can't blame the original speaker. Walter being illogical, now that's a shock. But he's still grammatically correct.


Check out American Usage and Style - the Consensus by Roy Copperud. He agrees with me both in the acceptability of such modification and in the clumsiness of his/her. If you're unwilling to accept 'their', you can always revert to the simple 'his' - although I tend to avoid it.

So Walter may be gramatically correct, but he has no style Wink


Edited by Visitor13 - June 15 2009 at 16:03
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 16:03
Originally posted by moreitsythanyou moreitsythanyou wrote:

Micky that is a great pic, did you take it yourself?


oh no...  I don't even own a camera hahha.  Not a picture person.  Lifted it from the web. Thumbs Up
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 16:04
Fly, you foolsLOL!
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 16:10
a grammar lesson... in a Decemberists thread


oh lordy... how appropriate is THAT LOL  Love groups that have me running to the dictionary... isn't prog great.


checking out Bob's defense of .. The Perfect Crime LOL


Edited by micky - June 15 2009 at 16:11
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 16:14
hahhahah....


that sucked Beavis... made A Perfect Crime sound like Close to the Edge
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
~Rael~ View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 11 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 247
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 16:27
Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by moreitsythanyou moreitsythanyou wrote:

Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by WalterDigsTunes WalterDigsTunes wrote:

his/her


their

Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well.


'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'.
And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one.



Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style. 

Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone.


Edited by ~Rael~ - June 15 2009 at 16:29
I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress, I repeat myself when under stress . . .
Back to Top
ClemofNazareth View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Prog Folk Researcher

Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 16:30
Originally posted by Negoba Negoba wrote:

12 Bar Blues Progression - Check
Casio Keyboard sounds - Check
Out of Sync Harmonies - Check
Almost in time drums - Check
Mixing LSD and Paint Thinner - Check
 
What could have gone wrong?
 
Don't forget
 
Pop Culture reference - Check (it's a line from Midnight Cowboy)
 
There's also some muffled rambling discussion at the end of the record about the molecular universe inside our thumbs, so I think you're right about the LSD and pain thinner LOL
 
 
 
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."

Albert Camus
Back to Top
Visitor13 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

VIP Member

Joined: February 02 2005
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 4702
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 16:53
Originally posted by ~Rael~ ~Rael~ wrote:

Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by moreitsythanyou moreitsythanyou wrote:

Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by WalterDigsTunes WalterDigsTunes wrote:

his/her


their

Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well.


'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'.
And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one.



Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style. 

Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone.


And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some.

Isn't language fun?


Edited by Visitor13 - June 15 2009 at 16:55
Back to Top
Alitare View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 08 2008
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3595
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 17:36
Some logical queries for dear Walter:

1 - What is the cutoff for music? Is it just 1990 + in general? Or did something magically vile and sinister occur December 31st at 11:59-January 1st 12:00?

Why is all music made post 89 worse than all music made prior? Are you seriously saying that Bands like
Foreigner, Motley Crue, and Quiet Riot are more original than any and all bands made past 1989? What is the actual scientific assessment of it? All bands have influences. I don't see you damning Alan Parsons for his influences, which are much more defining than any influences I've found in maudlin of the Well.

Would you go step by step with me? Is it some maniacal brain wave corruption? Can you define exact and precise proponents to your theory with proven scientific tests and backing? What of birth before or after 1989?

What determines the quality? What if a band recorded a lot of songs in 1987, but only released them in 1991? Does that make the music bad? How would you scientifically determine this?

Is it whent he music is recorded, or when it is released? Did all songs unreleased prior to 1989 magically lose their quality when the year passed?

I would love a thorough and pragmatic response.
Back to Top
Pekka View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 03 2006
Location: Espoo, Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 6442
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 17:46
^I learned today that to be accepted as music the band in question must have debuted before 1989. 2009 albums by any old enough farts are worth some clappies.
Back to Top
crimson87 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: January 03 2008
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 1818
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 17:50
Originally posted by Keppa4v Keppa4v wrote:

^I learned today that to be accepted as music the band in question must have debuted before 1989. 2009 albums by any old enough farts are worth some clappies.
 
Gentle Giant and Gong are gonna prove that
Back to Top
KingCrimson250 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 573
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 18:33
Originally posted by Alitare Alitare wrote:


I would love a thorough and pragmatic response.


Yeah. That'll happen.


Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 18:39
Originally posted by Alitare Alitare wrote:



I would love a thorough and pragmatic response.


Don't hold your breath, my friend.
Back to Top
Raff View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 18:42
If you are expecting a response of that kind, you're all fooling yourselves... once againLOL!
Back to Top
moreitsythanyou View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: April 23 2006
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Points: 11682
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 18:45
Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by ~Rael~ ~Rael~ wrote:

Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by moreitsythanyou moreitsythanyou wrote:

Originally posted by Visitor13 Visitor13 wrote:

Originally posted by WalterDigsTunes WalterDigsTunes wrote:

his/her


their

Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well.


'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'.
And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one.



Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style. 

Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone.


And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some.

Isn't language fun?

It is fun, that's why I'm such a grammar nazi. But a plural pronoun taking the place of a singular noun is just plain wrong no matter how many people mess it up.
<font color=white>butts, lol[/COLOR]

Back to Top
jimmy_row View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 18:51
I retroactively apologize for any gray hairs I've caused on the heads of you English nazi folk.LOL
Signature Writers Guild on strike
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 18:52
LOL

watching a good hijack is almost as fun as doing it yourself Clap



The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
micky View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46838
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 18:56
oh yeah.. while we are off topic...


Guru Guru is like smoking joints with your ears not your lungs....
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2009 at 19:01
Originally posted by Alitare Alitare wrote:

Some logical queries for dear Walter:

1 - What is the cutoff for music? Is it just 1990 + in general? Or did something magically vile and sinister occur December 31st at 11:59-January 1st 12:00? Keith Emerson woke up with a female expert in sexual physical services by his side and he decided that his b*****d child "prog rock" didn't have a right to live, therefore he announced his plans to go to wichita kansas....

Why is all music made post 89 worse than all music made prior? Because great people was born in 1988, therefore, nothing good could happen after such a religious event... Are you seriously saying that Bands like
Foreigner, Motley Crue, and Quiet Riot are more original than any and all bands made past 1989?  Well, yes... Mucho better then Hottie and The Blowfish and Candlebox... But also much better than Sigur Ros... although he was born in 1999.... And it's still whining.... What is the actual scientific assessment of it? Pure biology you fools!! All bands have influences. I don't see you damning Alan Parsons for his influences, which are much more defining than any influences I've found in maudlin of the Well. Because Alan Parsons was actually awake and sober when he recorded...

Would you go step by step with me? That's New kids on the Block... Is it some maniacal brain wave corruption? Good title for a post-1989 album... Can you define exact and precise proponents to your theory with proven scientific tests and backing?Try "The Dawn of the era of Anti-music and the death of thye arts" by Thomas Henry Guayasamin, Edit Anata, 1999, p. 234  What of birth before or after 1989?

What determines the quality? WalterlikestunesWhat if a band recorded a lot of songs in 1987, but only released them in 1991? Then Walterdoesn'tdigtunes Does that make the music bad? Walterfeelsmusicsucks How would you scientifically determine this?Walterconfused

Is it whent he music is recorded, or when it is released? Teoalsoconfusedbutdigstunes Did all songs unreleased prior to 1989 magically lose their quality when the year passed?Yes.... there was a cosmic event which all of you fools happen to ignore which caused this.... You should read your gazettes more you people of low information...

I would love a thorough and pragmatic response. Walterrunsaway
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314 19>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.268 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.