Gravitas should be pronounced grah-vee-tass, not gravatoss. Grah-vee-tass just sounds better.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Turner68

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Turner68

Quote
treaclefingers
Isn't he just calling out the people that are all over him for not liking the album? That's how I've read the last several pages here.

He contrasts that with the 'mickettes' who don't 'hate on him' for outing Superheavy as a steaming pile of garbage. (...and I for the record still like that record!).

No, that isn't what is going on. I don't think anyone got "all over" Doxa for not liking Crosseyed Heart, nor do I think Doxa claimed that. (Side note: if you read what he said, he likes the album, he questions its greatness).

I find this whole discussion strange. Everyone has an equal right to post. What does it mean to "question someone's right to post"? Have people been banned or verbally abused? Has someone said that Doxa shouldn't be allowed to post on here anymore? What a ludicrous idea. Maybe i missed something.

Really? You should perhaps read a little closer...

[Quote
DandelionPowderman]

No one should feel obliged to burst in and cool things down when people are enjoying something.

The language is very clear, and you've mischaracterized what he said. "Obliged" means "required to". He's saying that Doxa shouldn't feel he needs to step in to cool things down. He is not saying Doxa shouldn't be allowed to.

oh please, we're going to argue over sematics?

You are the one who suggested reading a little closer.

He's saying Doxa should feel the need to step in...a polite way of saying, 'Doxa, shut up'. Dandy obviously holds Doxa in high esteem and therefore is experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance in that they may not completely agree on this.

There, is that give you better understanding of what was written?

Quote
GasLightStreet
Gravitas should be pronounced grah-vee-tass, not gravatoss. Grah-vee-tass just sounds better.

It would allow one to shake there gravitas in public.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Do you think that fans need to be cooled down when they express joy over something, treacle? Or would it be more in place criticising the album, and to tell why they don't like it?

I'm baffled by having to ask this question at all

I can't comment on your baffledness....reread what you've written very carefully and eventually you will come to understand.

I shouldn't have had that third cup of coffee...the last hour committed to this thread was enough of a stimulant!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Turner68

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Turner68

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Turner68

Quote
treaclefingers
Isn't he just calling out the people that are all over him for not liking the album? That's how I've read the last several pages here.

He contrasts that with the 'mickettes' who don't 'hate on him' for outing Superheavy as a steaming pile of garbage. (...and I for the record still like that record!).

No, that isn't what is going on. I don't think anyone got "all over" Doxa for not liking Crosseyed Heart, nor do I think Doxa claimed that. (Side note: if you read what he said, he likes the album, he questions its greatness).

I find this whole discussion strange. Everyone has an equal right to post. What does it mean to "question someone's right to post"? Have people been banned or verbally abused? Has someone said that Doxa shouldn't be allowed to post on here anymore? What a ludicrous idea. Maybe i missed something.

Really? You should perhaps read a little closer...

[Quote
DandelionPowderman]

No one should feel obliged to burst in and cool things down when people are enjoying something.

The language is very clear, and you've mischaracterized what he said. "Obliged" means "required to". He's saying that Doxa shouldn't feel he needs to step in to cool things down. He is not saying Doxa shouldn't be allowed to.

oh please, we're going to argue over sematics?

You are the one who suggested reading a little closer.

He's saying Doxa should feel the need to step in...a polite way of saying, 'Doxa, shut up'. Dandy obviously holds Doxa in high esteem and therefore is experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance in that they may not completely agree on this.

There, is that give you better understanding of what was written?

No, he was not telling Doxa to shut up, he was simply saying he disagreed with Doxa when Doxa said he needed to step in and cool down the Keith fans. We can ask him what he meant, as a matter of fact he has clarified it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-08 19:27 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Turner68

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Turner68

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Turner68

Quote
treaclefingers
Isn't he just calling out the people that are all over him for not liking the album? That's how I've read the last several pages here.

He contrasts that with the 'mickettes' who don't 'hate on him' for outing Superheavy as a steaming pile of garbage. (...and I for the record still like that record!).

No, that isn't what is going on. I don't think anyone got "all over" Doxa for not liking Crosseyed Heart, nor do I think Doxa claimed that. (Side note: if you read what he said, he likes the album, he questions its greatness).

I find this whole discussion strange. Everyone has an equal right to post. What does it mean to "question someone's right to post"? Have people been banned or verbally abused? Has someone said that Doxa shouldn't be allowed to post on here anymore? What a ludicrous idea. Maybe i missed something.

Really? You should perhaps read a little closer...

[Quote
DandelionPowderman]

No one should feel obliged to burst in and cool things down when people are enjoying something.

The language is very clear, and you've mischaracterized what he said. "Obliged" means "required to". He's saying that Doxa shouldn't feel he needs to step in to cool things down. He is not saying Doxa shouldn't be allowed to.

oh please, we're going to argue over sematics?

You are the one who suggested reading a little closer.

He's saying Doxa should feel the need to step in...a polite way of saying, 'Doxa, shut up'. Dandy obviously holds Doxa in high esteem and therefore is experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance in that they may not completely agree on this.

There, is that give you better understanding of what was written?

NO, he was not telling Doxa to shut up, he was simply saying he disagreed with Doxa when Doxa said he needed to step in and cool down the Keith fans. We can ask him what he meant, as a matter of fact he has clarified it.

For the love of god...when you tell someone you shouldn't feel the need to step in, it is the passive aggressive way of saying, DON'T STEP IN?

All I'm saying is that when you go there you've stepped over a line. Don't post in our 'rah rah' thread and piss on our parade.

It's infantile to hold that sort of attitude in a discussion forum. The fact that I'm taken to task for holding the same opinion confirms for me this observation.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-10 14:27 by DandelionPowderman.

Although I haven't listened to the album since that one time a couple of days ago, I think it's growing on me.

I want to like it more now to show everyone that I like it despite feeling it's ok to criticize it.

I hope that with repeat listens I come to disengage myself from it once again.

I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

What in teh fook is going on here!?

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

But what's wrong with that? That's what a discussion involves, doesn't it? You seem to be suggesting that it would have been better had Doxa been allowed to make his critical comments without any rebuttal. People should be able to defend something they like just as someone should be able to criticize it, as long as it's done without resorting to name calling and abuse.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Of course Turner got me right, as I'm sure most people would, too.

Like I've said too many times already, people should criticise the music not feel obliged to rib the ones who like it. That one person don't think the reviews are balanced just isn't a good enough reason, imo.

Review the music.

I like that you've incorrectly framed Doxa as it better suits your argument now.

Quote
His Majesty
What in teh fook is going on here!?

Too much coffee this morning...

Has Keef got a new album out, then?



"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
His Majesty
What in teh fook is going on here!?

You got me, babe.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
His Majesty
What in teh fook is going on here!?

Too much coffee this morning...

HEY! I resemble that remark!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
His Majesty
What in teh fook is going on here!?

Too much coffee this morning...

HEY! I resemble that remark!

Me too...though I'm trying to get off the sauce. Switched to tea now...with a little sympathy and a sense of humor...geez, I hope I never lose either of those, especially around here.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
His Majesty
What in teh fook is going on here!?

Too much coffee this morning...

HEY! I resemble that remark!

Me too...though I'm trying to get off the sauce. Switched to tea now...with a little sympathy and a sense of humor...geez, I hope I never lose either of those, especially around here.

I tried quitting coffee and did so for months at a time, always gravitating back, much to my chagrin. Then I wake up one day several years ago and they find it's considered a 'health drink'. That and red wine.

Life shouldn't be this good.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

But what's wrong with that? That's what a discussion involves, doesn't it? You seem to be suggesting that it would have been better had Doxa been allowed to make his critical comments without any rebuttal. People should be able to defend something they like just as someone should be able to criticize it, as long as it's done without resorting to name calling and abuse.

My point was that it might go a bit beyond the point of discussion when someone feels a need to post some flowering praise of the record as soon as they see a word of criticism, and that it is often the same people. It's just an observation, of course I love a good rebuttal as you well know.

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

More rules!
Lol
I know what you mean though.

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

Mmmmm. Well, I'll claim that I've never felt compelled to, how shall I state it? Root for Mick's solo albums? Although WANDERING SPIRIT is one. I've lost track about what I've said about CROSSEYED HEART. I know I was quite up about it for a bit. It was invigorating.

I think a big part of it is how frustrating it's been being a Stones fan with Keith's shape the past few, uh, well, since 2005 really, and how this sheds some of that darkness. It's not in itself just the lack of new Stones music, it's the 'what is going on with Keith?' aspect that makes CROSSEYED HEART a boost to the system. That's probably what's really going on. I doubt if it was, in terms of activeness with the Stones and solo careers era, MAIN OFFENDER, that it would be getting such attention because that was in the midst of two eras, really: after DIRTY WORK, TALK IS CHEAP, STEEL WHEELS, 2 years of Stones tours, a live album and before the beginning of a new era with the upcoming JUMP BACK, the remasters and VOODOO LOUNGE-STRIPPED-BRIDGES TO BABYLON-NO SECURITY.

CROSSEYED HEART fell out of the sky! Sure, the Stones have been touring but whatever. Nothing new for eons.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

But what's wrong with that? That's what a discussion involves, doesn't it? You seem to be suggesting that it would have been better had Doxa been allowed to make his critical comments without any rebuttal. People should be able to defend something they like just as someone should be able to criticize it, as long as it's done without resorting to name calling and abuse.

My point was that it might go a bit beyond the point of discussion when someone feels a need to post some flowering praise of the record as soon as they see a word of criticism, and that it is often the same people. It's just an observation, of course I love a good rebuttal as you well know.

Yes, I do know and I also know that you don't count the number of posts you've made when you're in the thick of a discussion....and it's often the same people there...but it's just an observation.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

But what's wrong with that? That's what a discussion involves, doesn't it? You seem to be suggesting that it would have been better had Doxa been allowed to make his critical comments without any rebuttal. People should be able to defend something they like just as someone should be able to criticize it, as long as it's done without resorting to name calling and abuse.

My point was that it might go a bit beyond the point of discussion when someone feels a need to post some flowering praise of the record as soon as they see a word of criticism, and that it is often the same people. It's just an observation, of course I love a good rebuttal as you well know.

Not to dwell on this, but I haven't seen anyone condemning Doxa for his critical reviews of the album itself - but maybe there has been some rebuttal?.
As stated before, the supposed backlash might have more to do with his need to balance out the "division" he perceives between Mick fans and Keith fans - or "intervention" as he calls it.
Sounds like a strange objective to me, but perhaps he has his reasons for feeling obligated to do so.

Personally, I enjoy his heartfelt reviews and revisions of his thoughts on the album for the most part,
but to stray into the territory of being a moderator on a mission seems a bit odd and mysterious imo.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-11-08 20:37 by Hairball.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

But what's wrong with that? That's what a discussion involves, doesn't it? You seem to be suggesting that it would have been better had Doxa been allowed to make his critical comments without any rebuttal. People should be able to defend something they like just as someone should be able to criticize it, as long as it's done without resorting to name calling and abuse.

My point was that it might go a bit beyond the point of discussion when someone feels a need to post some flowering praise of the record as soon as they see a word of criticism, and that it is often the same people. It's just an observation, of course I love a good rebuttal as you well know.

Not to dwell on this, but I haven't seen anyone condemning Doxa for his critical reviews of the album itself - but maybe there has been some rebuttal?.
As stated before, the supposed backlash might have more to do with his need to balance out the "division" he perceives between Mick fans and Keith fans.
Sounds like a strange objective to me, but perhaps he has his reasons for feeling obligated to do so.

Personally, I enjoy his heartfelt reviews and revisions of his thoughts on the album for the most part,
but to stray into the territory of being a moderator on a mission seems a bit odd and mysterious imo.

While I don't know the man personally I've read enough of his posts that I feel I can trust where he's coming from...and I for one didn't 'understand' what he's said in the same way you have. If there is anyone on this board that I feel should be given the benefit of the doubt, it would be Doxa.

He's also identified something undeniable which is that there is a schism within stonesland that has what he's described as "Keithists" behaving in a certain way when it comes to criticism of Keith's music or playing.

For the record, I hate both Keith and Mick equally for taking all my money all these years so you can view me as completely impartial.

I hear ya GLS. But Keiths record didn't really fall out of the sky, he's been talking about it for quite some time and the PR was somewhat overwhelming.

But I think I know exactly what you mean about this bringing some welcome light on the whole Keith saga. It is what we all wanted to turn around some sense of doubt that Keith was losing relevance or skills. However his decision not to play a single tune live to support the record and the fact it was a carefully crafted studio work made of best takes, or at least the most inspirational ones, and done over a periods of years kind of eliminates any real clarity on the subject. Plenty of opportunity to disguise the kind of thing we worry about with Keith and no chance any of that stuff was going to be allowed to surface on the new record. But his song selections and his production values were certainly welcome and genuine here and he certainly put some effort into singing some of the tunes better than I expected.

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

Thus proving Doxa's original point - the oversensitivity when it comes to Keith around here is mindnumbing.

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

Thus proving Doxa's original point - the oversensitivity when it comes to Keith around here is mindnumbing.

Ah, the old over sensitive card...always a good one to pull out when you don't like what someone has to say. Doxa knew when he wrote his Keithettes post that he'd get a flood of response....he's a big boy, I think he can take it.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

Thus proving Doxa's original point - the oversensitivity when it comes to Keith around here is mindnumbing.

Ah, the old over sensitive card...always a good one to pull out when you don't like what someone has to say. Doxa knew when he wrote his Keithettes post that he'd get a flood of response....he's a big boy, I think he can take it.

I guess for those self-identifying as 'keithettes'. For me that speaks volumes.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
Stoneburst

Quote
Naturalust
I think what I'm noticing here is that as soon as someone like Doxa or whomever posts a somewhat critical post about CH, the same posters immediately follow up with some new element of one of the songs that makes the record so great and Keith such a genius, if not a more direct rebuttal. LOl It's pretty obvious who here is enamored with this record but pretty transparent that they also feel the need to defend it to all comers too. Sometimes the defense is just disguised in clever ways. Perhaps we should just have a limit that you can't post more that twice the number of songs on the record in this thread. I think most people should be able to get their points across in 30 posts. Ha!

Thus proving Doxa's original point - the oversensitivity when it comes to Keith around here is mindnumbing.

Ah, the old over sensitive card...always a good one to pull out when you don't like what someone has to say. Doxa knew when he wrote his Keithettes post that he'd get a flood of response....he's a big boy, I think he can take it.

Maybe oversensitive wasn't the best choice of his words there but I think treacle was on to something when he mentioned passive aggressiveness. I was actually going to make a few critical comments about the record and watch with a big smile as the usual suspects immediately chimed in with the flowery praise but I realized I didn't have to, there are plenty of examples in these 230 pages to support my point.

But in any case, I think we can all agree that we would all fiercely defend Keith, Mick and The Stones if any true outsiders came around and tried to knock them around too harshly.