|
| quote: | | Firstly it was "You're contradicting yourself", which we rapidly established as nonsense |
Because I didn't bother arguing this, it doesn't mean I "dodged it", as in, "I didn't know what to say, so I dodged it".
Basically, yes, you DID contradict yourself. You said that you don't want professional criticism but then went on to actually ask for it. Asking for "more detail" is essentially asking for professional/formal/constructive criticism.
| quote: | | "Constructive criticism means being nice" |
Yup. Constructive criticism is a sort of criticism that you can easily digest, not necessarily the one that can't hurt (nice talk can hurt too anyways).
Blunt criticism is usually one that is hard to digest, due to its raw, honest, blunt, informal, obscure, vague nature. We discussed earlier why this kind of criticism is better than former.
(also, obviously, the former is FAR nicer than the later)
| quote: | | I don't even know what "formal criticism" is supposed to be. You keep using it as though it's an established term, despite the fact that even Google hasn't heard of it and keeps referring me to Russian formalism instead. |
Ah, right, okay. Yes, it's not an established term. It's also known as "constructive criticism" or "professional criticism". I used word "formal" because it seemed more precise, as in, it implied that it's a sort of criticism that has clear form, in contrast to blunt criticism a.k.a. informal criticism, which is criticism with no form.
Basically, an example of formal criticism is when you try to criticize something by making sure that the person you're criticising will get clear idea as to what he or she should be changing. This kind of criticism is useful in teacher-student, expert-audience and manager-worker relationships, basically, in any kind of relationship where one is supposed to teach the other, that is know more than the other or just know something that other doesn't.
In artist-audience and craftsman-audience relationships, the audience is of vital importance, but the audience itself is clueless i.e. they know nothing. As such, it's up to craftsmen to accept informal criticism and read between the lines. Formal criticism in such cases is useless and it usually makes people just soften their criticism in a really dumb way such as "I liked first two tracks, but not sure about the others, but it's probably because I'm not into prog house" when they should be going "Fuck this shit, prog house sucks because of this and that", because raw, blunt criticism tells a lot more than softened criticism, even when it's not directly of relevance to you.
| quote: | | As for discrediting you, you're the stupid fuck who listened to a psy-trance mix and then criticised it for not sounding "groovy", so the damage is pretty irreversible there. |
There is a lot of psy-trance that is groovy.
| quote: | | You're probably finding out from the jazz thread that people on this forum are now going to prejudge you as a fucking moron based entirely on what you've said in this thread. And the longer you go on, the worse it's going to get. |
LOL.
I can't care less about that. It won't be the first time that people over-react only to feel guilty because of that later on.
| quote: | | But like I said, I'm quite happy to keep this going. 24 more people have heard my mix this week already, because you're keeping it top of the DJ Promotion forum by replying to this thread. Feel free to offer informal, unconstructive criticism on my other mixes while you're at it. |
See, I actually listened to whole set of yours and you get fucking pissy about it.
|
