[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Ever seen a university library? It's not always the newest and best material you find there. It's also not the case that each painting is photographed via the newest and best equipment, that's not possible for various reasons. Moreover, there are paintings that have disappeared or do no longer exist. So all you have may be old black-and-white photos of them. According to your reasoning such paintings should be ignored when evaluating an artist's work. (?)

If you do not have a good representation of the work you cannot know if your opinion is accurate.

You might see a grainy black and white photo of the Sistine Chapel and see enough in it to move you, but could you, without seeing what it is really like, feel qualified to dismiss it and say Michelangelo was having a bad day at the office?

It's all about the benefit of the doubt.

If you are looking at a grainy black and white photo how can you comment on Michelangelo’s use of colour?

Originally Posted by Sarge

We don't always have proper (who defines that, by the way?) sources available to base our opinions on. SO WHAT? Are we not allowed to discuss the Napoleonic Wars just because we haven't taken part in them? How do we know that books we read about them are a proper account of what happened? If you're only allowed to have an opinion about something if you have the "right" sources available, we can hardly discuss anything.

Last time I looked, Napoleon wasn't on any forums, and none of his fans told him that Austerlitz sucked

After a battle I had not taken part in, I wouldn't have walked up to Napoleon after hearing some muffled cannon shots in the distance, and said "dude, you should have done like this......".

If I was in a pub talking about Waterloo, and Napoleon walked in and started correcting me, I might believe he's a little biased, but i'd also think he knew more on the subject than me.

I'll leave Napoleon alone now

Originally Posted by Sarge

All our opinions are based on something that has already been filtered somehow, even when it comes to things we experienced ourselves. You can perceive something in a certain way today and in another way tomorrow.

Just for the record, i'm talking about opinions formed from crap youtube vids, nothing more

Originally Posted by Sarge

Whether someone says "Meat sounds great on this" or "Meat's voice sounds weak here" is a result of various factors like perception, expectation, experience, preferences, association, situation/circumstances, context... You can't say who is "right" and who is "wrong". It doesn't have that much to do with Meat Loaf himself. That's why he shouldn't take "negative" comments that personal - because they usually aren't.

It's a result of a flawed media clip.
Again, I believe that to criticise Meat and the strength of his voice when you can't hear it clearly is ludicrous.

As for being personal, to Meat, they are.
An example I have used before is if a baker were to stumble on a forum dedicated to every loaf, pie, cake, and bun he had ever made.
How would that baker feel?

Originally Posted by Sarge

Is that OUR fault? Maybe he should at least try to understand his fans instead of (over)reacting the way he usually does. Do you think it makes fans happy to be wrongfully accused of not liking him again and again? He always expects us to be considerate towards him, so why can't he show a little consideration himself? That's my sense of fair play. Fair play should go both ways, otherwise you can't call it "fair".

Did I say it was our fault?

It's Meat's fault.
I've said it before, i'm saying it now, I dare say i'll say it again at some point.
It's just one more way that I have shown criticism towards Meat, which makes claims that I want this to be a yes forum all the more hard to understand :S

I think Meat should show a little more consideration at times (I walked into Meats firing line once when he was huffing and puffing, and it wasn't nice) but two wrongs rarely make a right.

But we're trying to make a bigger picture out of a stamp here.
My point was that Meat shouldn't be judged on crap footage. That it was not fair to do that.
That's what i'm saying, that's the point i'm making, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Sarge

If someone had intentionally insulted Meat Loaf, I'd agree that the mods should take action but banning posts in which someone simply reflects on what they see/hear is wrong.

I have tried, and failed to stop the same old arguments before they happen.

They usually start because there are negative comments towards Meat based on bad phone footage.


Last time we had the argument the red pony was born and took all the vids away.
Perhaps when a few more thoughtless posts have been made the red pony will ride again trashing good Meat Loaf vids wherever it sets it's hoof.

Not good for Meat. Not good for the fans. (Not good for Wario who will probably have another account full of stuff deleted).

Originally Posted by Sarge

As I said, even a high-quality recording does not ensure that the listener/viewer will like what they hear/see. Fans talk about what they like and also about what they dislike. That's what they do, especially on internet forums (that's what they are usually created for). It's what keeps fan communities alive. The most active and interesting forums are usually those on which you're not told which opinion is "right" and which is "wrong". (Mind you, I'm not talking about the usual forum rules regarding the tone and wording of posts.)

What port of "crap youtube vids recorded on mobile phones" are you not understanding?

There is no such thing as a correct opinion on a a music forum, and there is no such thing as an informed opinion where camera phone vids are involved.

Let me pay you the compliment of saying I don't believe that you are misunderstanding me by accident here
I really don't think I need to explain what my point is this many times for you to understand the difference between an honest opinion and an uninformed one.
I don't think I need to post this many times that I have no problem with informed criticism of Meat and his work.

Originally Posted by Sarge

In spite of going for a hunt for posts that could contain the slightest trace of criticism, Meat Loaf should pay attention to all the positive stuff as well and be glad that there are people who are that much interested in his work, even if not all of it is to everybody's liking.

I agree.
I agree 100%.
There are many more things said on the forum that are positive than negative, and Meat should appreciate that.
But I still think the negative posts THAT ARE BASED ON CRAP YOUTUBE VIDS are not well informed and therefore unfairly critical.

Negative posts about an album from someone who has heard the album, or about concerts from someone who was at the concerts cannot be said to be unfairly critical because the poster knows what they are talking about.

That's the difference.

Originally Posted by Sarge

But I have the feeling that discussing with you is in vain.

Only because I have to keep saying I have no problems with negative comments, as long as they have some basis in reality.

I keep saying it, and it keeps not being heard, so I think it really is in vain.

Originally Posted by Sarge

You are obviously convinced that you did the right thing and are defending your baby (the new "rule") with fangs and claws and are immune to counter-arguments.

Not true.
I've already agreed (several times) that as positive comments only is something of a double standard, we shouldn't have any youtube discussion here.

I'm not unyielding to counter argument, as long as it's a convincing one.

Originally Posted by Sarge

I understand your motivation but I don't think that you're doing the community and Meat Loaf any favours with that rule.

I think a little FAIR consideration in relation to bad youtube footage would do Meat good.
It would do the fans good because he wouldn't feel the need to nuke youtube.
I also think the community would get on better without the rows caused by footage that gives little insight and big headaches all round.