Please read - Youtube vid comments

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Wario

this whole thing amazes me.

You and me both
Why anybody should be so determined to be able to post negative posts besed on camera phone footage is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Wario

The person being "negative" isnt a bad person, but an honest one.

You're singing from my hyme sheet Chris.
I've never said that being negative is a "bad thing".
I've said that negative opinions (as well as positive opinions) based on crappy camera phones are not properly formed ones.
This being the case, comments that can be hurtful (based on the evidence of a camera phone) shouldn't be posted on the forum.

Originally Posted by Wario

Until Meat decides to set foot on this forum again, i wouldn't be too bothered if what you say offends him. hes a big boy and can take constructive criticism. hes gone here anyway. Its sad but true

He's been here a few times over the last couple of months, and was here last two days ago.

He might be a big boy who can take criticism (I don't think that's always 100% correct with some of the outbursts he's posted) but if he's going to be criticised it should be over something real, not something recorded on a mobile phone.

Originally Posted by loaferman61

Just what I was thinking. When you get paid the big bucks to perform in front of thousands of people nightly you have to accept that people .. even <gasp> fans are going to have reactions and not 100% will be fawning positives about rolley-coasters and cotton candy clouds.

How many times do I have to post this?
Should I type extra slow so everyone has a chance to get the message?

I do not have a problem with people having negative opinions about Meat Loaf or his work.

Let me say that again so hopefully it'll be the last time I have to.

I do not have a problem with people having negative opinions about Meat Loaf or his work.

I've had them myself.

What I have a problem with is posting negative comments about Meat's performance based on poorly recorded media.

I would have honestly believed that as fans (the definition of that word varies widely, but I think everyone can agree that the word "fan" indicates someone who is interested and enjoys the work of the artist in question) that when it came to poorly shot footage Meat could at least be given the benefit of the doubt rather than the negative of the doubt

It baffles me, it really does.

Originally Posted by loaferman61

And if Meat would use the wealth of knowledge about the love of his songs on here to take some constructive points or honest feelings it can only help him.

Agreed.
But how can comments on the strength of his voice, when you can't hear it clearly help him in any way?

The arrangements of the songs, perhaps (you can get a feel of the general arrangement), but his voice? You need something a little clearer to base your opinions. Both good and bad. But as i've argued (time and time again) good comments (although not well based) do not unfairly hurt someone feelings.

Originally Posted by loaferman61

Hell, I do office work and some days I know my work sucked and it is open to criticism from those who employ me.

Everyone has bad days at the office, of course they do. And if you happen to be in Meat's "office" on one of his bad days, comment on it if you will. You were there and have a fully formed opinion on what you saw and heard.

Some days your work might suck but at least it's judged on it's own merit.
I can't see your boss giving your paperwork to his dog to rip up and take a shit on before judging it's quality.
Or judging how good your paperwork is by viewing CCTV footage of you writting.

Originally Posted by loaferman61

One other point a DVD is an official release as we know and has been in 99% of cases "cleaned-up", overdubbed, etc. before release. That is not a negative, a;most everybody does it.

So we shouldn't comment on DVD's either then, because we are running out of things to talk about?

Originally Posted by loaferman61

As some say "we have been down this road", thing is we learned nothing. Being told that if your opinion is positive share it, but if not STFU is a double standard.

Again, positive comments don't hurt, so I say share the joy

BUT, if you want to say no negative comments and no positive comments, no comments at all, i'll get behind that

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

Okay, I understand 100% where you are coming from...however, I also remember some comments (which were, IMO, honest and respectful) about a television appearance a little while ago that caused a big uproar around here- is a television appearance considered "official" and therefore "fair game"?

I don't have a problem with those vids.
I don't have a problem posting honest negative opinions about them.

Shite camera footage = no good place to base opinions.
Like that bloke who tried to build on sand.

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

Or, let's say if someone actually attended a show and had something less than glowing to say? I'm going to be totally honest and say that I've not been totally honest about some of my opinions in that regard. And, I don't mean that in a "bad" way, before anyone thinks that, I just don't feel free to express my complete honest opinion.

Cool, if you go to a show and don't enjoy it, post about it.
I've not asked anyone not to do that.

I've asked that negative opinions should not be posted when based on unsuitable evidence.

There is a very very big difference.

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

And, if I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment, an official DVD is not always a 100% accurate depiction of a performance.

True, but perhaps it's the closest thing we're going to get.

Originally Posted by Lucy!

Completely agree Julie. The issues that have been raised today have come from people's comments about You Tube footage, but let's face it it's not the first time this issue has come up.

Which is why I wanted to try and stop it before it all starts over again

It seems we have the same thing every tour.
Bad quality youtube clips come on the forum, they get commented on (see again my view that forming an opinion based on a youtube clip is like building on sand) Meat gets pissed off he's being slagged off by people who were not even at the show and leaves the forum (usually insulting a member or two on his way out), this place turns to civil war (Christmas has come early this tour ) and a thread starts in Site Feedback (here we are) on how to fix the forum.

Originally Posted by Lucy!

I fondly remember MLUKFC being a place of honest, respectful discussion, sadly it seems those days are long gone, and apparently a "negative post" is defined as anything not 100% positive.

Which is what it should be now.
I've not asked for that to change in any reasonable way.
I've asked only that negative opinions that are not well based (because the footage was filmed on a crap phone) not be posted on the forum.

Do you really think that that is so unreasonable?

Is it wrong, or kissing ass, to understand that a ill informed negative opinon might not be hurtful to Meat, and to feel that that's not deserved?

If you were at the show and it was crap, you know what you are talking about, but he doesn't deserve to have his vocals dismissed because of a youtube clip.

Originally Posted by Lucy!

As people are very quick to point out, Meat is human - he has good and bad days, good and bad moods and good and bad days at work just like the rest of us do,

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Lucy!

but heaven help anyone who comments on the bad days.

Don't need help against me if you are posting about something you saw/ heard and are therefore in a position to have an opinion that carries a little weight

Originally Posted by Lucy!

It seems that the need to please Meat (knowing full well that he's reading the posts on here) over-rules common sense and honest discussion.

How can discussion be honest when it's based on BS?
Opinions (both good and bad) based on bad quality youtube clips are not very enlightened. The difference is that positive comments are not going to unfairly upset Meat.

But as i've said before, if you want to ban positive comments as well as bad ones because they don't hold water, fine by me
No double standards in that.

Originally Posted by Lucy!

Sorry guys but I don't buy into it, I'm not going to change my opinion or attack anyone else's opinion just to get in Meat's good books, no way.

Me neither.
It's a subject I feel i've written a book on by now (or a Steinman song ) so i'll just say "see above"

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Personally I have never referred to anyone or group as "haters" and I think the term "true fan" is also a nonsense and one I never use. I see critical fans, I see supportive fans, I see some who are both.

I have said many times, one can write negative feedback in ways which are dismissive or which take account of the feelings of the person being fed back on. I happen to agree that bootleg recordings are not a good basis on which to make judgements. Perhaps the best thing would be for this forum to not have them posted? They are bootlegs after all, and if people want to watch them they can go and find them on YT. Just a thought.

Otherwise it's the same circular discussion. However, I've never felt that freedom of speech is compromised, nor trampled on, by the basic premise that people have feelings, Meat has feelings, and that to be asked to consider them when writing on the internet is not censorship in my view. To me that's simple decency and humanity, plus a bit of respect (in this case for a man who in my view deserves it because his effor
ts and achievements have earned it .. again in my view). Not rainbow land or any of the other epithets people may apply to it .. just caring for another's feelings.

Caryl

When people in a position to inpose rules do so to say that a certain type of post is acceptable and encourage it openly, but at the same time say if you think different to keep it off the board, that is an issue. Take Meat and feelings out of it and look at the rule. People with rule making power openly endorse one thing, so how are they going to excersise that in ptactical application? This is a.slippery slope IMO.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

When people in a position to inpose rules do so to say that a certain type of post is acceptable and encourage it openly, but at the same time say if you think different to keep it off the board, that is an issue. Take Meat and feelings out of it and look at the rule. People with rule making power openly endorse one thing, so how are they going to excersise that in ptactical application? This is a.slippery slope IMO.

Sorry but I do not see our basic human rights being compromised or indeed on a slippery slope to some imagined perdition. Nor can I take the feelings of the man whose name is on every page here out of it.

I am supremely fortunate that I have met Meat many times, and will meet him again. Many will never do that. And my view is that for all those who will never get the opportunity to meet him, but who were thrilled when he posted here, replied to them, accepted PMs which were sometimes read, sometimes replied to, keeping him happy is worth it. His presence, on his terms, is worth what it meant and could mean to those people .. in my view.

Whatever the difficulties in what Mouse is trying to do here, I think he is reaching for the right way forward, for those fans as well as for Meat, who I think has earned the right to be kept a little happy when it comes to bootleg recordings .. he has given many of us a lot of happiness. That is my view, and no amount of freedom of speech or censorship sabre rattling will alter it I'm afraid .. just as I believe Meat has a right to be as sensitive as he may be, without girding on the hide of a rhinocerus

Caryl

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Do you know how many students of art history have to learn something about paintings and artists by more or less good photos / reproductions? They don't have direct access to every painting that is featured in their studies. You are obviously underestimating people's ability to gain experience in evaluating, interpreting and judging things.

Usually the photos in books are of decent quality, and are taken with an instrument (and other equipment) specifically designed to give the best results. Not many books on art are illustrated by photos taken on a Nokia (hang on, did the Nokia have a camera? Never mind).

Originally Posted by Sarge

No, but you're applying double standards and have introduced one of the most contradictory, illogical and discriminatory rule this place has ever seen.

Again, i'm more than happy to go back on what I said and back the banning of positive comments as well as negative ones?
So there are no double standards.
Does that make us all happy again?

Originally Posted by Sarge

No one has "condemned" Meat. A single member of this forum stated his opinion on a performance he had seen in a video. It just differed from that of other users, he did not judge Meat Loaf's entire work by it or something like that. Considering that the majority of the members who participated in the Austin thread LIKE the videos / Meat's performance, I don't understand why the hell you consider these videos or discussions about them such a threat.

It's happened before and (give me a moment to double check my crystal ball, yep, it's tour time) it'll happen again.
This was my attempt to nip it in the bud before things got cooking again (where do good intentions lead again? )
It's been mentioned many times before that Meat concentrates on the minority negative comments he receives rather than the majority of positive, and I agree with that, but it doesn't stop the fact that I think that all these comments are poorly founded and that the negative ones are unfair.

Originally Posted by Sarge

You take the liberty to criticize Meat Loaf yourself but try to bar others from saying something "negative" because you are allegedly that concerned about his feelings. That is weird.

It's my sense of fair play.
Nothing more nothing less.
Meat decides what songs to use on an album and picks the style and feel. He picks the band, he is involved in the arrangement, he is the vocal.

If it is good or if it is bad is down to the bloke with his name on the cover.

He picks the set list for his shows and tells the band what he wants to do. He decides what special effects he wants to use. He decides what works and what doesn't.

Praise him for what he got right, and criticise what he got wrong.

If the show is great or the show sucks is down to the bloke with his name on the ticket.

Praise him for what he got right and criticise him for what he got wrong.




A camera phone tends to be a cheap piece of crap that is not custom made for recording live music in large venues.
How Meat sounds on it is not down to Meat.


It's not so much his feelings being hurt, it's his feelings being hurt by something he cannot be held accountable for.

Originally Posted by Paul Richardson

... or for arguments sake what if the band and Patty were excellent, but Meat was poor ? Despite the often variable quality of the clip, hardly anyone ever says the band or Patty were poor ... because they hardly ever are ... just saying ...

You might have a point with this, but I still say take everything on youtube with a pinch of salt.

Originally Posted by Adje

Anyway, although, I'm certain the intentions behind the original post are good, this post puts 'honest opinion' on this board in perspective.

Either you suport honest opinion or you're against it. But don't ask people to go one way. That eliminates the value on any post

I am FOR honest opinion.
But I am for informed honest opinion.

There's a world of difference.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

"Some consideration and respect" is a totally subjective thing. If someone thinks Meat's voice isn't great it seems to me some people take that as disrespect and posting without consideration and straight away such people are branded as being wrong or listening with the wrong ears.

My only issue I have Andrew, is posts commenting on the strength of Meat's voice when the clip doesn't give an accurate indication.

If it's recorded by proper equipment and it sucks, so be it, but on a camera phone, who the hell can tell what it sounds like it the room?

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Tonight I saw a bit of Rihanna's tv performance at Hackney.

Better you than me

Originally Posted by AndrewG

A few weeks ago I saw Paul McCartney at the Jubilee thing. I thought his vocals and performance were truly awful. So naturally a lot of Paul McCartney fans would hate my opinion. Simpels.

The BBC (although shit at times) didn't record his performance on a mobile phone, so you got a more honest representation of what he was like.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

I think it is actually the taking opinions too personal that is the problem here, always has been.

It's not surprising that Meat takes it personal (because it's all about him ) but last time we went through this he set the red pony of the apocolypse free in youtube land and it went it's merry way deleting rare songs, rare live performances, interviews, anything it could find with the name Meat Loaf on it.
Was it really worth having all that stuff lost to posterity because some folks wanted to say Meat doesn't sound so good recorded on a mobile?

I say no.
A million times no.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

The pattern of dislikes on theses posts above is just ridiculous and I feel it highlights my post perfectly.

You must admit it makes a pretty pattern

I find it interesting when somebody "likes" two posts that are completly conflicting.
Interesting, but off the topic

Originally Posted by AndrewG

I feel that I cannot post an honest opinion on the Meat Loaf forum at all without upsetting some people.

I don't feel that way myself.
I feel I can disagree with someone on this thread then go serve them a pint in a virtual pub not too far from here.
It's not personal. I'm not disagreeing with everything a person thinks (or disliking them because of it) i'm just disagreeing with how they feel about this issue.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Some say post with respect? What do they mean exactly? Constantly sucking up to Meat or something else? Can someone please explain?

I don't believe you need to suck up to Meat or like everything he does.
Putting your dislikes into repectful language isn't very hard to do. And if you are doing that, in some degree at least, because you consider how Meat feels when he reads it, I don't believe it automatically makes you a kiss ass (or a suck up, or a brown nose, etc etc) I think it just might mean that you have a little compassion in your soul for a guy who (although hasn't always hit the target cenrer dead bang) has worked hard to give you a lot of pleasure over the years.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

As Sarge said if I like a YouTube vid it is ok to say that Meat Loaf is awesome?
If I dislike a YouTube vid it is only the quality of the video I can dislike?

Like i've said a couple of times since I started this batch of replies, let's ban positive comments so we can all be happy then.

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Actually I think the mods have done a poor job here. In my opinion it would have been better to have left the original negative comment in the Austin thread and perhaps clamping down on all the YouTube quality stuff which I do think is unrelated to Austin generally, instead of resorting to censorship and opening a can of worms between the positive vs negative YouTube opinion camps again.

Same shit, just a different day.

My bad <-------- waves hand in the air.
What can I say, I know what's a commin' (it comes every tour) and I tried to deflect it before it hit.
Remind me where good intentions get you again?

[LisaT]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

You and me both
Why anybody should be so determined to be able to post negative posts besed on camera phone footage is beyond me.


etc etc etc

Well, Mouse, I can see what you are trying to say here! The point you are trying to make is quite simple really, but has been blown out of all proportion as far as I can see!

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Lucy!

Exactly. It's not about opinions any more, it's about posting to keep Meat happy.

Read my previous posts, and you'll see that I don't believe that people need to post to keep Meat happy.

I just believe in being fair to the man.

Originally Posted by Lucy!

This is no longer a place of honest discussion and debate, it's a place to stroke Meat's ego and create a world where everything he says and does is perfect...which he, like the rest of us, is not!

I think it should be a place of honest discussion and debate, but (again) that discussion shuold be based on something better than a youtube clip.

I've had no problem voicing my dislike of some of his work and I don't think this forum needs to be (or should be) a place where Meat and his works are perceived to be perfect.

Originally Posted by Lucy!

Do you guys not notice how many people don't bother with MLUKFC any more? People who, over the years, have dedicated so much time to writing reviews and articles and submitting photos - not just to the forums but to the printed RVMs we used to get - and they're no longer here. And it's not because they've given up on Meat, it's because they can't be bothered with the backlash when they post something honest and people dive down their throats for being "disrespectful".

And I don't agree with that kind of behaviour.

It's not what we're talking about, and it's not what i'm defending.

I'm saying that Meat should not be judged by a poor quality youtube clip filmed on something that was designed for making phone calls from.

That's it.
Period.

Does it really make me such a brown nose to think that we perhaps owe him a little more consideration than that?

Originally Posted by Lucy!

Since 1998 this fanclub has been an enormous part of my life, and it genuinely upsets me to see what it's turned into.

It upsets me (bewilders me actually) that a place where we used to have a lot of love for Meat is a place that now seems to have a hard time giving him the benefit of the doubt over poor quality concert vids.

Originally Posted by loaferman61

Who is disrespecting Meat? How do you define disrespect? When a pre-emptive rule is made saying to comment on something if you enjoy it, but keep quiet if you don't how is that not bordering on censorship?

Again, will banning positive comments as well as negative ones (as both are based on unreliable footage) make things better?
If so, i'm all for it.

Originally Posted by loaferman61

Things really became comical to me when it was said if your opinion was not positive to blame the clip.

Who said that?
I don't think I said that (I certainly didn't mean to say that )

What I said was if you don't like the sound of it, at least accept the possibility (the doubt) that the clip is not a good indication of the performance.

There's a difference between blame and doubt, and if there wasn't a lot of innocent folks would be in jail right now.

Originally Posted by loaferman61

Problem is Patti sounds fantastic on those clips, not saying Meat sounds bad mind you, but should I only comment that Patti sounded great, which leaves an implication that Meat might not have?

Ffom what i'm reading on this thread, nobody should say anything about nothing

[robgomm]

I think some of you are missing the point here (again).

Nowhere did Mouse say that you couldn't post your opinion. Meat can take criticism no problem, but it's what you say in respect of the artist viewing it. How many more times do we have to say this!

Take the Paul Mcartney thing for example, I wouldn't have said he was truly awful on his fan site if I knew he would see it because that would be deliberately upsetting someone that I allegedly admired. You could just say, good effort as always from Paul but it wasn't his best performance. That's fine in my view, Paul still wouldn't be happy about it but at least you've praised his effort.

It's just thinking about what you say. Imagine if you was in the same room as Meat and he asked you what did you think of my performance? Now imagine that it wasn't a great night night for him, what would you say? You would tell him he gave it his all, because we know he does that every time. Now as we ARE on a forum you can perhaps relax and go slightly further but not much, maybe just as far as saying like I said, great effort but wasn't his best last night. Because like it or not he does visit here, so if you're posting without even thinking about his feelings and reaction to what you post, then I don't think you're much of a person let alone a fan, because you are upsetting the person you allegedly admire and care for, like a friend wouldn't.

I don't know how many more times it can be said, just think! The fact that this thread has gotten so long is testament to it not getting into peoples heads! C'mon people, i'm sure you're more intelligent than this.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

Starting off calling people passionate about Meat Loaf "haters" is rather odd.

This is my whole point.
The people of this forum are not haters.
We are here becuse (according to my deffinition of what a fan is) we are interested in Meat work, and it has brought us a great deal of pleasure.

Which makes me ask again, is it so wrong, so brown nosing, ass licking, sucking up to resist the urge to make a negative comment about the strengh of Meat's voice based on a youtube clip recorded on a phone?

Originally Posted by loaferman61

The fact we are discussing here is that the "true" fans who have power made a rule that sought to suppress honest opinion, and went a step beyond to encourage you to comment if you thought something was great. You don't see the problem there?

I am not trying to suppress informed free speech (I feel like i'm at war crime trials here ) i'm asking that where there is doubt, give Meat the benefit of it rather than saying his voice is weak when you got your intel from youtube. The evidence available is about as reliable as wikipedia.


Again, perhaps it was a mistake to say it was OK to leave a positive comment.
I'm very very sorry for that.
I think we agree that I should have asked that no comments, good or bad, should be posted.

Originally Posted by Burkeaholic

Mouse who made this thread has shown in the past that he can be fair to both sides,

One does ones best

Originally Posted by Burkeaholic

But to directly answer your question, i don't see a problem with it because you can't properly judge from a YouTube video. The quality is crap and you weren't there. The whole thing has a totally different feel and sound at the show that can't be translated through a YouTube video.

It's took me posts longer than Steinman songs to try and make that point, but apparently i'm endangering peoples civil liberties, so good luck with that one

Originally Posted by CarylB

Personally I have never referred to anyone or group as "haters" and I think the term "true fan" is also a nonsense and one I never use. I see critical fans, I see supportive fans, I see some who are both.

I see factions, but I wouldn't call them "haters" or "true fans" either.

Originally Posted by chairboys

Are we not all fans? Thus, "true" fans.

All except Fred
We sould gang up on him and beat him with large sticks.
Then I can suppress his freedom of speech

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by robgomm

Meat can take criticism no problem,

Surely you jest. That is part of, if not the root of, the issue.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Whatever the difficulties in what Mouse is trying to do here, I think he is reaching for the right way forward, for those fans as well as for Meat, who I think has earned the right to be kept a little happy when it comes to bootleg recordings .. he has given many of us a lot of happiness. That is my view, and no amount of freedom of speech or censorship sabre rattling will alter it I'm afraid .. just as I believe Meat has a right to be as sensitive as he may be, without girding on the hide of a rhinocerus

Just for the record, I (personally) don't have the problem with bootleg live material that others have, but my philosophy about it is (IMHO) a fair and respectful one.
Either view/listen to the bad quality footage, accept it for what it is, and find enjoyment in there somewhere if you can, or avoid it because the quality is not good.

What I don't think you should do is go on a forum where the artist (a person I assume you have some respect for) visits and is having the bootleg material wafted under his nose (bad enough) and saying that his voice isn't strong on the strength of that.

It's not a well formed opinion, but one that can cause upset to a bloke who has done nothing to deserve it.

As i've said above, that kind of behaviour is what led to the birth of the red pony, and i'm sure that I and many other fans who don't get to see the rare material that was deleted anymore think it was a bad exchange.

Originally Posted by LisaT

Well, Mouse, I can see what you are trying to say here! The point you are trying to make is quite simple really, but has been blown out of all proportion as far as I can see!

Thank f*ck for that
Because it sounds like some people think i'm trying to measure them for orange jump suits so I can take them to a undisclosed location and open a can of whoop ass on their civil liberties

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Usually the photos in books are of decent quality, and are taken with an instrument (and other equipment) specifically designed to give the best results.

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. (?)

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

It's been mentioned many times before that Meat concentrates on the minority negative comments he receives rather than the majority of positive [...] It's my sense of fair play.

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".

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. 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.)

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.

But I have the feeling that discussing with you is in vain. 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. If you want to be mod on a boring forum that conveys an atmosphere and is full of silly restrictions that prevent honest, diverse, interesting discussions so be it.

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

[chairboys]

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.

That's it. I'm giving up thinking.

[wolfy35]

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the point of this thread could have been explained a little better.

If you see a vid on YT & like what you see then great Meat strives to give his best for his fans, Feel free to discuss this and tell others why you liked it.

If however you see a vid on YT instead of going off on a bender and criticising Meat instead stop for a second and think about what you are actually seeing. Any vid posted on YT so far will be either from a camera phone or at best a small videocamera and filmed from a distance with poor settings and sound. In these cases instead of criticising Meat and saying his performance was poor instead the chances are it was just a poor video or recording.

Or at least thats the way I see things

[chairboys]

Originally Posted by Sarge

If you want to be mod on a boring forum

Come on, Sarge.
This is not a boring forum. If it is then we are ALL just a bunch of bores.
Since joining last year, I haven't laughed so much at all the comments posted on here. Because they can be honest, subtle, rude, funny, controversial or whatever. But, don't call it boring!!!
And, secondly, who would want to control the crowd on here?
Hats off to the Mods!!

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by chairboys

This is not a boring forum.

It isn't yet but it is in serious danger of becoming one.

Originally Posted by chairboys

Since joining last year, I haven't laughed so much at all the comments posted on here.

Too bad you didn't join earlier.

[TheDoode]

I'm sorry, I just can't buy into this camera phone idea. I love Meat and that's why I'm here, but you CAN judge a performance based on most youtube clips, and that goes for most artists. If it's a bassy, distorted clip with little there on the upper end of the spectrum, and you can hardly hear the vocals, then no. But with 90% of clips, yes, you can hear enough to make your own mind up. Check out recent stuff by Sammy Hagar, Edguy, Iron Maiden, Van Halen, etc. There's so much camera-phone material of gigs over the past few months and some of these bands sound great, and some don't. On other nights, they might sound a bit better. Some sound worse. The point is, you CAN hear it, and you CAN tell the difference between the performance (basically), and the medium it was captured on.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Just for the record, I (personally) don't have the problem with bootleg live material that others have ....

I do mainly because it's generally poor quality and to me often doesn't do the performer justice .. but that's my choice to make. And I agree wholeheartedly with this:

... but my philosophy about it is (IMHO) a fair and respectful one.
Either view/listen to the bad quality footage, accept it for what it is, and find enjoyment in there somewhere if you can, or avoid it because the quality is not good.

Entirely fair and reasonable in my view too.

What I don't think you should do is go on a forum where the artist (a person I assume you have some respect for) visits and is having the bootleg material wafted under his nose (bad enough) and saying that his voice isn't strong on the strength of that.

It's not a well formed opinion, but one that can cause upset to a bloke who has done nothing to deserve it.

I really cannot see why this is being argued with, or considered "censorship", or some "slippery slope". It seems reasonable, decent and fair. Virtually every ticket I have bought says on the reverse that videotaping is prohibited. If the artist doesn't want it done, if it doesn't give an accurate reflection of the performance he has put such care and effort into, why should he have it waved in his face as purported evidence that he hasn't done a good job, or his performance is lacking in some way?

And if you insist on doing that, why should he think you like or respect him, as a person or a performer?

And some people may well be able to consider they can judge a performance from a distorted video .. some may even be able to. Some in my view cannot. I have been to shows where Meat has sounded great, and seen bootlegs in which you could barely hear him, or were so distorted his voice sounded woolly or cracked .. but I know it was not, because I was there. And I know his voice is not always perfect, he occasionally fluffs a note, is not quite on pitch for a moment or two. As of course does he, without any added help from me. I simply don't spend time concentrating on that, but rather on the vast majority of his performance which was without fault. Those who hear it live and want to concentrate on or highlight the few imperfections, that's their choice.

But I have seen those same clips which do NOT reflect his performance with any accuracy at all being used to support critical comment that his voice was not up to par. It happens, it has happened. And I agree with Mouse. It's not a well formed opinion, and can rightly cause upset to a man who has done nothing to deserve it.

Caryl

[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.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by chairboys

And, secondly, who would want to control the crowd on here?

That would be me

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

:
But I still think the negative posts THAT ARE BASED ON CRAP YOUTUBE VIDS are not well informed and therefore unfairly critical.

Yet the rule says "If you like the footage that's posted on youtube, great. Share how much you like it." What is the difference?

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

Yet the rule says "If you like the footage that's posted on youtube, great. Share how much you like it." What is the difference?

Would you like to go through the posts i've posted since then and count how many times i've agreed that both good comments and bad comments are equally uninformed so, in the spirit of equality, should be both left off the forum

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by robgomm

I think some of you are missing the point here (again).

Nowhere did Mouse say that you couldn't post your opinion.

Speaking of "missing the point": The rule states that you must not post your opinion on a YouTube video unless it's favorable.

As for the room thing - bad comparison. This is a website on which fans discuss Meat Loaf. It's neither his "room" nor one in which he's permanently present. It's a community he decided to become a member of. I'm also surprised that you favor lying to people, especially since it comes to someone you adore. Flattery only makes sense if it's honest flattery, otherwise it's deception.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Would you like to go through the posts i've posted since then and count how many times i've agreed that both good comments and bad comments are equally uninformed so, in the spirit of equality, should be both left off the forum

The answer is 7.

And I might have even missed one or two.

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Would you like to go through the posts i've posted since then and count how many times i've agreed that both good comments and bad comments are equally uninformed so, in the spirit of equality, should be both left off the forum

I have seen them but have not seen the rule retracted. So you are agreeing the rule was a bad one?

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Speaking of "missing the point": The rule states that you must not post your opinion on a YouTube video unless it's favorable.

As for the room thing - bad comparison. This is a website on which fans discuss Meat Loaf. It's neither his "room" nor one in which he's permanently present. It's a community he decided to become a member of. I'm also surprised that you favor lying to people, especially since it comes to someone you adore. Flattery only makes sense if it's honest flattery, otherwise it's deception.

See the 7 comment in the post above.