Post 3153078 by josemanuel@mastodon.tetaneutral.net
(DIR) More posts by josemanuel@mastodon.tetaneutral.net
(DIR) Post #3152200 by craigmaloney@octodon.social
2019-01-19T17:52:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I think that the world will be a much better place when folks realize that everything is not meant for them.Even if the previous iteration was directly aimed at you the new version might not be aimed at attracting your attention.Movies, music, etc.; it might not be meant for you."But I've been a fan since the beginning"It's not for you."But I have everything they did memorized"It's not for you"But but..."*sound of feedback and the whine of electricity as the PA system fires up*
(DIR) Post #3152201 by josemanuel@mastodon.tetaneutral.net
2019-01-19T18:33:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@craigmaloney Ok. But can we apply that same logic to software (e.g., Mastodon) as well as, I don't know, the new She-ra?Because something tells me your argument only tries to work one way, and I don't think it should.Also, what happens if I think something is objectively a piece of shit, even if it's not meant for me? Shouldn't I be allowed to raise my concerns about it? (Note that I'm not asking for my opinion to be taken into account by everybody, just to be able to voice it.)
(DIR) Post #3152486 by mikeburns@octodon.social
2019-01-19T18:44:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@josemanuelIf your concern is that something has issues, and this is unrelated to whether you are the audience, then I don't understand how this relates to the toot you are responding to.
(DIR) Post #3153078 by josemanuel@mastodon.tetaneutral.net
2019-01-19T19:02:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mikeburns The way I understood it, Craig was criticising those who in turn criticise things that, for some arbitrary reason, are seen as not meant for them.My point is that you're allowed to criticise whatever you want because you're free to do so. That doesn't mean your opinion should be paid any mind at all or be above criticism itself. Just that you can give it, and that's independent of whether what you criticise is meant for you or not.
(DIR) Post #3153117 by craigmaloney@octodon.social
2019-01-19T19:03:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@josemanuel It's not for you.
(DIR) Post #3153146 by josemanuel@mastodon.tetaneutral.net
2019-01-19T19:04:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@craigmaloney How does that invalidate my point exactly?
(DIR) Post #3153158 by craigmaloney@octodon.social
2019-01-19T19:04:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@josemanuel It's not for you.
(DIR) Post #3153212 by josemanuel@mastodon.tetaneutral.net
2019-01-19T19:07:13Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@craigmaloney So you get to decide what is for me and what is not without even knowing me? Interesting. And totalitarian. But you already know that, of course.
(DIR) Post #3153290 by mikeburns@octodon.social
2019-01-19T19:09:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@josemanuelThanks for clarifying.I don't read Craig as trying to limit what one can say, but instead suggesting an alternative way of thinking about the world. Instead of thinking "this is no longer good," it might be more healthy to think "I am no longer the audience."When it comes to helping solve problems, the target audience is always going to get the best results. So if something has problems, we can delegate to the new audience to fix it.
(DIR) Post #3153583 by josemanuel@mastodon.tetaneutral.net
2019-01-19T19:19:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mikeburns > I don't read Craig as trying to limit what one can sayAsk him why he blocked me, then.> it might be more healthy to think "I am no longer the audience."Very few things are not intended for everybody, because, at the very least, it makes economic sense. That said, you have a very good point, but, again, why can't anybody analyse publicly why they feel left out?Think of the recent DailyDot article. According to C's logic, it shouldn't even have been written.
(DIR) Post #3153843 by mikeburns@octodon.social
2019-01-19T19:26:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@josemanuelThe Daily Dot article, as I understand it, contains a mix of "I am not the audience" concerns with "here are problems everyone has" concerns. My timeline is filled with people responding to the former, ignoring the latter.The author can write anything they want, but if they wanted us to focus on fixing the place for everyone it would have been wise to leave out the first style of complaints.
(DIR) Post #3154483 by josemanuel@mastodon.tetaneutral.net
2019-01-19T19:42:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mikeburns The way I read it, it was more “I'm mad because I feel I'm no longer the audience” (which was funny, because that same complaint is brushed off when other people make it) and “here are the problems I have (because I don't quite understand how the Fediverse works) and I'm going to blame Gargron for them.”I thought the article was a bit childish, because it tried to generalise what clearly was a personal beef to make it somehow acceptable as ‘serious’ writing.
(DIR) Post #3154770 by mdhughes@cybre.space
2019-01-19T19:50:03Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@craigmaloney Nearly always, when people use the "not for you" defense, it means their new work is garbage and they're driving away the existing fans in hopes of getting lower-IQ new fans; it never happens when they go up-market, only down-market.
(DIR) Post #3155577 by craigmaloney@octodon.social
2019-01-19T20:12:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mdhughes I'm not even sure where to start with this.I'm sure that this was leveled at Miles Davis when he went electric. Was it "dumbing down" his sound? Hardly. He was tired of playing bebop and wanted to explore different territory. But the jazz purists didn't like it, and he basically told them to kiss his ass.Or Rush when they added heavy synths to their music. It was interesting for them to explore that territory, until it wasn't.Or Bob Dylan when he went electric (but I'm not a fan)
(DIR) Post #3155916 by mdhughes@cybre.space
2019-01-19T20:20:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@craigmaloney You picked some very old examples of the 1% where it sort of didn't backfire.But there's also thousands of cases like, Liz Phair who made edgy, emotional rock with poetry, and then changed to the shittiest auto-tuned pop music. It made her more money, but nobody from her old fans respects her anymore.And TV & movies is where this especially happens, because there's no "artist" with a single vision, there's a production company optimizing for ad revenue, and dumb people buy more.
(DIR) Post #3156401 by craigmaloney@octodon.social
2019-01-19T20:32:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mdhughes I don't know much about Liz Phair's situation, but it seems she found a different audience that appreciates her current music enough to stick with her.I'm sure folks who liked Peter Gabriel Genesis didn't care for Invisible Touch at all. Was it a bad album though? Hardly. It just appealed to a different group of people. They were at a different point in their careers. I'm sure there are folks who think that Phil Collins ruined the band, but if so then he had help.
(DIR) Post #3156674 by mdhughes@cybre.space
2019-01-19T20:41:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@craigmaloney Phil's Genesis should have been a different band. I stopped listening to them until years later, because he used them as backup for his solo act.Van Halen: Sammy Hagar is not a performer I want to listen to, and he aimed far, *far* down-market from the blues-rock where they'd started. They probably made more money with Sammy, but artistically they were wrecked until they reunited with Dave.So, that's my point. Popularity isn't quality, and the old fans have a right to shout "you suck!"
(DIR) Post #3157049 by craigmaloney@octodon.social
2019-01-19T20:51:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mdhughes My point though is that creators have every right to explore their boundaries and take risks. Some risks are more profitable than others (alienating an entire fan-base is not something that creatives do lightly). My original point was that artists need to be able to say "this isn't for you" in order to grow and for our culture to grow. Even if the audience is an audience of self-indulgence it's still an audience.Otherwise Lady Gaga would still be playing Vegas Piano shows.
(DIR) Post #3272918 by USBloveDog@cybre.space
2019-01-23T02:33:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@craigmaloney This is why loyalty to anyone is a mistake.