Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread - Part II

[Spring in Fialta]

That's an unfair comparison because The Room is something that's a trainwreck in miraculously great way that completely works rather than the normal kind of trainwreck.

You could even call The Room a great movie, even if it was completely unintentional.

I just buzzed on this word and it made me think of the movie Trainwreck. Can someone explain to me what makes that movie so particularly good? I can't differentiate it from any other regular rom-com yet it seems to get a particularly high amount of praise.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Controversial opinion-- The Room should be considered a legitimately great movie because its rewards are legitimately great. How poorly it was made and the success of its intentions shouldn't be the barometer, the experience of watching it should be.

Oh, and here's another one:

Two great points. I agree wholeheartedly. To give an example, I'm currently watching The Sopranos for the first time. Unfortunately, due to re-watching some clips I liked on Youtube, I got spoiled a few things due to the names of other videos. Some of these moments I've come too. It didn't bother me at all. The experience was still fantastic if only because of the way the show built up to the moment or presented it in great fashion.

 

[Shareefruck]

I just buzzed on this word and it made me think of the movie Trainwreck. Can someone explain to me what makes that movie so particularly good? I can't differentiate it from any other regular rom-com yet it seems to get a particularly high amount of praise.

I sort of just wrote it off as something that gained steam because of her popularity at the time but wasn't actually praised by anyone. But then I looked at Rotten Tomatoes and it looks like it actually was acclaimed as well, and I'm pretty surprised by that.

Felt a bit like a media-driven bandwagon thing to me in general.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

Two great points. I agree wholeheartedly. To give an example, I'm currently watching The Sopranos for the first time. Unfortunately, due to re-watching some clips I liked on Youtube, I got spoiled a few things due to the names of other videos. Some of these moments I've come too. It didn't bother me at all. The experience was still fantastic if only because of the way the show built up to the moment or presented it in great fashion.

I'm the same but I'm watching Arrow for the first time. I know some things that will happen, but in the first season and a half, the series has been rewarding so far. Really interested in what happens next.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Absolutely. I'd watch the Room again before I even considered watching something like Passengers or Batman v Superman again

Haha, I didn't mean it quite like that. I mean sure, it is a valid example, but I would not even go that far.

Case in point: I personally thought Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet was a disaster in so many ways that it suddenly made me feel like indulging a cocaine or LSD I never had in the first place..........but I'd still much rather see that than an otherwise functional adaptation of the story that has nothing noteworthy about it. The ultimate death knell for me tends to come from boredom rather than anger, outright disappointment or horror.

It somewhat ties into another opinion of mine: the notion that "the book is always better than the movie" has always been borderline stupefying to me.

And on an unrelated note: for all the negative attention drawn towards such subgenres as *****es and Bling Hip-hop or Bro Country (or whatever variation you wish to call these types of songs), I believe self-empowerment anthems are subjectively worse.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Danny Carey is the best drummer in the world (not super controversial)

However, I believe he is the best drummer ever and that no one will ever be better than him technically, creatively, and musically.

 

[Shareefruck]

Here's a hockey-related one... sort of entertainment. I'm not crazy about the idea/experience of going to see a hockey game live, and I find the crowd atmosphere from up close in some ways adds this obnoxious and artificial-feeling rather than adding extra enjoyment/authenticity. Mainly because I can't stand alot of the stupid comments and awkward/meaningless cheers that people scream out ("Let's go boys-- Shoooooot-- Go Bowiee! Boooo!!! That was offsides!"). The way people react to plays and act at hockey games can't help but seem unnatural/forced to me, almost like it's a self-aware performance that's being put on because of where they are rather than an organic reaction. I can't shake this feeling that the whole thing feels more like it's about the event/participatory fan atmosphere rather than the actual game, and I'm not a fan of that whole "Hey! Be in a festive, participatory spirit!" aspect of it. Anything removed/distracting from the actual game itself feels like an overly busy and meaningless distraction to me.

The crowd gives me chills that I appreciate alot when I see them from a distance, but up close it just feels like an irrational/slightly psychotic mob that actually distracts/takes enjoyment away from the game for me. I mostly just want to be isolated in a home theatre, soaking in the game, being entranced/hanging onto the emotion of every play, and only reacting with hushed groans and elated noises that naturally come out of me. If everyone else in the room is doing that same type of thing, and you can feel the tension in the room, I like that, but everything else just seems like falsified fun/noise that gets in the way, I feel.

Because of this, I'm also completely the wrong type of person that the team probably wants at crowds. It supposedly helps the team more if the building is loud and explosive, but I'm COMPLETELY the wrong type of person for that, and deep down I'm just thinking "Everybody be quiet, I'm trying to watch the game! Stop getting up off your feet and waving your arms around, you're blocking my view!" In my mind, I just end up getting irrationally angry at people who are (I guess doing the RIGHT thing and) standing up and participating in the theatre of it.

Given the choice between watching an important playoff game in person vs. on a good home theatre, I'd probably take the latter. Hockey's only fun when you're possessed in the game and nothing but the game, IMO. I like hockey, but I just don't like hockey fandom, I guess.

 

[Shareefruck]

Here's another one that's more just about how I happen to want to behave rather than something that I think is necessarily a correct opinion.

I almost always try to stay away from celebrity death threads. I almost have this irrational feeling that death is a sensitive and private thing for people who actually know these people and it would be disingenuous, intrusive, narcissistic, and patronizing of me to offer condolences as a fan, because I have this feeling that it's completely none of my business. Logically, any moral support is arguably a positive thing, but it just doesn't feel right doing it.

I'm far more likely to just avoid addressing the death entirely and instead use it solely as an opportunity to comment on my appreciation of their work. It seems like some people would think THAT'S inappropriate and rude, but it intuitively feels the other way around to me for some reason.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I tend to agree. This "2016 is the worst year ever" every time a celebrity dies. Come on. Its not like I dont feel sad when a celebrity dies. I got choked up when the girl that played caillou died, but it definitely feels disingenuous.

Except for when Michael died. That really was a international tragedy.

 

[Knarf9o5o1o4o9]

Run DMCs music was overrated and are remembered so fondly more for their look/logo than the quality of music. Thats not to say their music was bad by any means, but I don't listen to them and immediately think they're one of the best rappers/rap groups of all time. Most influential maybe, but in terms of quality of music they are very overrated.

Run's House is a great track though.

 

[Shareefruck]

Another minor one-- while I do think that the whole "musicians getting overrated due to a premature death" thing applies for a number of artists, like Kurt Cobain.... I'm absolutely infuriated by the fact that people put John Lennon in that category.

I tend to agree. This "2016 is the worst year ever" every time a celebrity dies. Come on. Its not like I dont feel sad when a celebrity dies. I got choked up when the girl that played caillou died, but it definitely feels disingenuous.

Except for when Michael died. That really was a international tragedy.

It particularly puts me off when I see someone say something like "I've never heard of him/her or don't particularly care for his/her work, but my deepest condolensces-- nobody should have to experience that or die that young."

Again, logically a perfectly defensible sentiment, but I just don't like it.

 

[DustyMartellaughs]

Big Bang Theory and Two And A Half Men are not funny at all. Chuck Lorre is the AntiChrist of comedy.

 

[Roo Returns]

To address the whole 2016 being the worst year ever, it wasn't the celebrity deaths but those were the icing on the cake. I can only speak personally but this was the most disappointing and deflating year for me in regards to career/life/love expectations. I'm actually taking the rest of the year off to pull and Eric Staal and "reset." Hopefully I can start 2017 with 26 points in 35 games or whatever he has.

As for Run DMC, they're one of those groups that had many more hit singles than are remembered. Mainstream America loves to show them just doing Walk This Way with Aerosmith and the Christmas song, but Down With The King, My Adidas, even Bounce from the first Beavis and Butthead album in 1993 all were memorable tracks in that era. They had 3 platinum and 2 gold albums, and were pretty much the first mainstream rap group along with the Fat Boys.

History has a funny way of being revisionist or "retconning" things as they say in comics and movies. Remember,in the mid to late 80s, INXS was one of the biggest bands in the world, and in the early 90s, Jackyl was a mainstream band for a minute, the Goo Goo Dolls were a noisy alternative rock band on 120 Minutes before 1995, and Collective Soul, Belly, Candlebox, and Live had hit records, but that's been wiped away from the historic records.

 

[Leafsdude7]

Here's a hockey-related one... sort of entertainment. I'm not crazy about the idea/experience of going to see a hockey game live, and I find the crowd atmosphere from up close in some ways adds this obnoxious and artificial-feeling rather than adding extra enjoyment/authenticity. Mainly because I can't stand alot of the stupid comments and awkward/meaningless cheers that people scream out ("Let's go boys-- Shoooooot-- Go Bowiee! Boooo!!! That was offsides!"). The way people react to plays and act at hockey games can't help but seem unnatural/forced to me, almost like it's a self-aware performance that's being put on because of where they are rather than an organic reaction. I can't shake this feeling that the whole thing feels more like it's about the event/participatory fan atmosphere rather than the actual game, and I'm not a fan of that whole "Hey! Be in a festive, participatory spirit!" aspect of it. Anything removed/distracting from the actual game itself feels like an overly busy and meaningless distraction to me.

The crowd gives me chills that I appreciate alot when I see them from a distance, but up close it just feels like an irrational/slightly psychotic mob that actually distracts/takes enjoyment away from the game for me. I mostly just want to be isolated in a home theatre, soaking in the game, being entranced/hanging onto the emotion of every play, and only reacting with hushed groans and elated noises that naturally come out of me. If everyone else in the room is doing that same type of thing, and you can feel the tension in the room, I like that, but everything else just seems like falsified fun/noise that gets in the way, I feel.

Because of this, I'm also completely the wrong type of person that the team probably wants at crowds. It supposedly helps the team more if the building is loud and explosive, but I'm COMPLETELY the wrong type of person for that, and deep down I'm just thinking "Everybody be quiet, I'm trying to watch the game! Stop getting up off your feet and waving your arms around, you're blocking my view!" In my mind, I just end up getting irrationally angry at people who are (I guess doing the RIGHT thing and) standing up and participating in the theatre of it.

Given the choice between watching an important playoff game in person vs. on a good home theatre, I'd probably take the latter. Hockey's only fun when you're possessed in the game and nothing but the game, IMO. I like hockey, but I just don't like hockey fandom, I guess.

Mostly interested in your viewpoints than saying if you think otherwise for it you're a hypocrite or anything, but do you have similar views for music concerts? Ie: do you think of singing along when they prompt you to and cheering when they say "we love you [insert city]" in similar ways, or is that different to you? And do you find watching concert DVDs or TV performances more enjoyable?

Big Bang Theory and Two And A Half Men are not funny at all. Chuck Lorre is the AntiChrist of comedy.

That's hardly controversial around here. I think they're both funny, though I'm conflicted with Chuck Lorre specifically, but most people here would call me uncultured and amused by unfunny things.

 

[Shareefruck]

Mostly interested in your viewpoints than saying if you think otherwise for it you're a hypocrite or anything, but do you have similar views for music concerts? Ie: do you think of singing along when they prompt you to and cheering when they say "we love you [insert city]" in similar ways, or is that different to you? And do you find watching concert DVDs or TV performances more enjoyable?

Yes. As a matter of fact, the fact that I expressed a similar view about how that quality seems pretty hollow to me in the "Greatest Frontman in Music" thread and pissed off a few posters who were annoyed by that sentiment is actually what made me think of the hockey one. I hate stadium rock. It feels like a complete sideshow to me. To me it should be a chance to see a musical performance, not a chance to participate in a rally/party.

In fact, an ADDITIONAL issue I have with concerts that I don't with hockey games is that when the crowd is deafening, I find that the music actually suffers most of the time (whereas in hockey, the players seem like they do play better as a result of the support). I'm blown away by the novelty of seeing footage of The Beatles walking into Shea Stadium with the screaming army of fans of course, but to me that's all it is-- novelty. Give me an intimate concert where the audience is in hushed anticipation and only react between performances, and where the charisma/stage presence of the "frontman" comes from jokey banter between performances any day. Wild, impulsive/primative/erratic movement by the performer, I'm all for, but when it feels like they're putting on a show for the crowd outside of the music, I don't. I just prefer the experience when it's pure and minimal.

The ideal for me is when you get to see a band perform live in a recording studio with no audience. I find that stuff really cool. And also, to me, that early footage of Zeppelin performing to a speechless audience who has never heard anything like it before (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJZHh-FiRz0) feels like an infinitely more cool experience to watch than watching sold-out-stadium era Zeppelin perform to hollers and screams. Performing to silence somehow feels more electrifying to me to me than performing to mayhem.

The worst thing (for both hockey and concerts) is when I'm actually there and the people around me actually seem to get mad at me for not actively participating as hard as they are and sometimes even try to guilt me into doing it or physically force me to raise my arms or something-- that stuff's infuriating. That's why I prefer to just stay away from concerts altogether.

 

[BonMorrison]

As someone who used to play in a band, having a quiet crowd is awful. A lot of stage energy feeds off the crowd and when you have a crowd that isn't moving or making any noises, its ****ing disheartening and it affects your morale on stage. On the opposite end of the spectrum, being in a crowd that is quiet and not doing anything especially in the pit, hurts the entire experience. A lot of the fun of the concert is the relationships you make with like-minded people in the crowd even it's just for a few hours. This is of course dependent on the type of music you're listening to but yeah, I can't get on board with any of your concert musings. I might be misunderstanding you though, let me know.

 

[Shareefruck]

As someone who used to play in a band, having a quiet crowd is awful. A lot of stage energy feeds off the crowd and when you have a crowd that isn't moving or making any noises, its ****ing disheartening and it affects your morale on stage. On the opposite end of the spectrum, being in a crowd that is quiet and not doing anything especially in the pit, hurts the entire experience. A lot of the fun of the concert is the relationships you make with like-minded people in the crowd even it's just for a few hours. This is of course dependent on the type of music you're listening to but yeah, I can't get on board with any of your concert musings. I might be misunderstanding you though, let me know.

Well, I mean... I'm speaking purely as a spectator and what gives me the most pleasure. I completely accept any rational arguments for why crowds being loud helps on a practical level, and it's a controversial opinion for a reason, but I personally prefer the experience more when it's other way.

Crystal clear sound, just a band playing music, shooting the **** between songs, with only a few people scattered around silently watching and admiring..... that's what my bizarro fantasy of a music concert would be like. Punk, rock, jazz, whatever.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

Here's another one that's more just about how I happen to want to behave rather than something that I think is necessarily a correct opinion.

I almost always try to stay away from celebrity death threads. I almost have this irrational feeling that death is a sensitive and private thing for people who actually know these people and it would be disingenuous, intrusive, narcissistic, and patronizing of me to offer condolences as a fan, because I have this feeling that it's completely none of my business. Logically, any moral support is arguably a positive thing, but it just doesn't feel right doing it.

I'm far more likely to just avoid addressing the death entirely and instead use it solely as an opportunity to comment on my appreciation of their work. It seems like some people would think THAT'S inappropriate and rude, but it intuitively feels the other way around to me for some reason.

I agree with you regarding celebrity threads and the phrase "2016 is the worst year ever". Are people really hanging the year on others instead of what they got accomplished? I mean maybe I'm selfish, but I had a great 2016. I got to see a Stanley Cup Final game, I got to go to a Star Trek convention, and I bought a new car. All the external stuff happened, but I can't control things externally, so from my perspective, 2016 was a great year.

Also, we are approaching a time where a lot of celebrities we watched and appreciated start to pass away. Some of it was shocking like Prince, and I'm hoping Carrie Fisher can make it through, but life has to come to an end at some point. We are not immortal after all. I also agree with saying how much you appreciate the work. It seems like we've become so cynical as a society we forgot what it means when we say "The Good Times", even though everyone seems to be using the Member-Berry Meme from south park.

 

[BonMorrison]

Well, I mean... I'm speaking purely as a spectator and what gives me the most pleasure. I completely accept any rational arguments for why crowds being loud helps, and it's a controversial opinion for a reason, but I personally prefer the experience more when it's other way.

Yeah that's fine. I think I was just rubbed the wrong way because your post triggered my PTSD of having to get onto stage with crowds that didn't give a damn.

 

[Shareefruck]

I agree with you regarding celebrity threads and the phrase "2016 is the worst year ever". Are people really hanging the year on others instead of what they got accomplished? I mean maybe I'm selfish, but I had a great 2016. I got to see a Stanley Cup Final game, I got to go to a Star Trek convention, and I bought a new car. All the external stuff happened, but I can't control things externally, so from my perspective, 2016 was a great year.

Also, we are approaching a time where a lot of celebrities we watched and appreciated start to pass away. Some of it was shocking like Prince, and I'm hoping Carrie Fisher can make it through, but life has to come to an end at some point. We are not immortal after all. I also agree with saying how much you appreciate the work. It seems like we've become so cynical as a society we forgot what it means when we say "The Good Times", even though everyone seems to be using the Member-Berry Meme from south park.

Just wanted to clarify that I didn't actually make the 2016 worst year comment, and I'm actually completely neutral about that. It was someone else's comment.

I'm actually talking about something different and probably less relateable-- for some reason, just seeing a thread about Carrie Fisher's current situation, seeing people discuss her medical condition, tracking her progress, and giving condolences (not saying it's not well meaning)..... I can't rationalize why I feel this way, but it all just seems kind of gross to me for some reason. Feels like something that personal/private shouldn't be intruded by those of us who only have a vested interest in their celebrity.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

Just wanted to clarify that I didn't actually make the 2016 worst year comment, and I'm actually completely neutral about that. It was someone else's comment.

I'm actually talking about something different and probably less relateable-- for some reason, just seeing a thread about Carrie Fisher's current situation, seeing people discuss her medical condition, tracking her progress, and giving condolences (not saying it's not well meaning)..... I can't rationalize why I feel this way, but it all just seems kind of gross to me for some reason. Feels like something that personal/private shouldn't be intruded by those of us who only have a vested interest in their celebrity.

Yeah I reread your post after I made my comment, but I think my point is still valid because it was part of the "2016 is the worst year" discussion going on. In terms of what you actually did say, yeah it is a personal thing but I wonder if there is a bit more public to it because she was a public figure. She was Princess Leia, in a franchise that just brought out a new movie and is probably the biggest franchise in film history. To find out what she is going through might feel like we're all invested because we've all seen Star Wars and we all know who she is.

 

[Shareefruck]

Yeah I reread your post after I made my comment, but I think my point is still valid because it was part of the "2016 is the worst year" discussion going on. In terms of what you actually did say, yeah it is a personal thing but I wonder if there is a bit more public to it because she was a public figure. She was Princess Leia, in a franchise that just brought out a new movie and is probably the biggest franchise in film history. To find out what she is going through might feel like we're all invested because we've all seen Star Wars and we all know who she is.

That's definitely the reason, I'm just hesitant to accept that that's a good reason to mix up public and private affairs.

In this case in particular, I just think of the fact that reporters are trying to keep up with the latest scoop about her progress, and I'm just thinking "it's none of their ****ing business, the public doesn't have a right to know, and by extension, it's none of our ****ing business either."

I probably can't back this point up logically. I'm just not comfortable with it. It's one thing when the president gets shot or something, but turning always occurring private deaths into a never-ending stream of celebrity news.... it just feels gross.

 

[Xelebes]

Yes. As a matter of fact, the fact that I expressed a similar view about how that quality seems pretty hollow to me in the "Greatest Frontman in Music" thread and pissed off a few posters who were annoyed by that sentiment is actually what made me think of the hockey one. I hate stadium rock. It feels like a complete sideshow to me. To me it should be a chance to see a musical performance, not a chance to participate in a rally/party.

In fact, an ADDITIONAL issue I have with concerts that I don't with hockey games is that when the crowd is deafening, I find that the music actually suffers most of the time (whereas in hockey, the players seem like they do play better as a result of the support). I'm blown away by the novelty of seeing footage of The Beatles walking into Shea Stadium with the screaming army of fans of course, but to me that's all it is-- novelty. Give me an intimate concert where the audience is in hushed anticipation and only react between performances, and where the charisma/stage presence of the "frontman" comes from jokey banter between performances any day. Wild, impulsive/primative/erratic movement by the performer, I'm all for, but when it feels like they're putting on a show for the crowd outside of the music, I don't. I just prefer the experience when it's pure and minimal.

I just don't think you were ever built for rock. As I understand it, stadium rock and how it is presented is EXACTLY the point. Rock & Roll has its roots as a hot band environment where the crowd is actively participating. This was a marked reaction against cool bands of the 1940s and 50s who only emerged due to the disappearance of dancefloors due to the dancefloor tax implemented at the conclusion of World War II.

Cool bands typically played in coffeehouses where there were no or very small dancefloors. In this environment, many university students experimented with folk songs and it is there you get the folk music movement of the late 40s and early 50s developing in places like Greenwich Village. You also had jazz bands playing cool jazz in coffeehouses.

In the sixties, you have a conflict. There are musicians who want to see themselves as artists and you had musicians who saw themselves as entertainers. This was a confluence of the Greenwich scene and. . .well, everywhere else. The split eventually led to the progressive rock movement which relied on a weird combination but mostly on the cool side.

So in the 60s, the Beatles were definitely a sweet and hot band. The screaming girls? Oh, that's the point. You can't deny that that is the point of the music. To get everyone so full of energy and moving and participating. Then John Lennon meets Greenwich Village artists and decides that he can do that as well. So they slowly move towards a cooler band. A band like AC/DC is and always has been a hot and hard band. That's their thing.

I mostly imagine you perfectly content to be sipping on coffee in a coffeehouse while you listen to your band. And that's perfectly fine. That's going to be your concert environment. But there are others who will want to head to the bar and drink beer while they listen to their band. That's what others want to do.

 

[Shareefruck]

I just don't think you were ever built for rock. As I understand it, stadium rock and how it is presented is EXACTLY the point. Rock & Roll has its roots as a hot band environment where the crowd is actively participating. This was a marked reaction against cool bands of the 1940s and 50s who only emerged due to the disappearance of dancefloors due to the dancefloor tax implemented at the conclusion of World War II.

Cool bands typically played in coffeehouses where there were no or very small dancefloors. In this environment, many university students experimented with folk songs and it is there you get the folk music movement of the late 40s and early 50s developing in places like Greenwich Village. You also had jazz bands playing cool jazz in coffeehouses.

In the sixties, you have a conflict. There are musicians who want to see themselves as artists and you had musicians who saw themselves as entertainers. This was a confluence of the Greenwich scene and. . .well, everywhere else. The split eventually led to the progressive rock movement which relied on a weird combination but mostly on the cool side.

So in the 60s, the Beatles were definitely a sweet and hot band. The screaming girls? Oh, that's the point. You can't deny that that is the point of the music. To get everyone so full of energy and moving and participating. Then John Lennon meets Greenwich Village artists and decides that he can do that as well. So they slowly move towards a cooler band. A band like AC/DC is and always has been a hot and hard band. That's their thing.

I mostly imagine you perfectly content to be sipping on coffee in a coffeehouse while you listen to your band. And that's perfectly fine. That's going to be your concert environment. But there are others who will want to head to the bar and drink beer while they listen to their band. That's what others want to do.

That's interesting.

To clarify where I'm coming from, I'm not sounding off against anyone who wants to do that. But at the same time, it's not some tribal pseudo-intellectual latte-sipping hipster thing, it's just that the pros and cons of the respective experiences just stack up a certain way for me that I can explain in a logical way. And yeah, I agree, it goes against the traditional "point" of some of the cultural movements that these acts were a part of, but you have to understand that I almost always come at music from a direction that really has no reverence for cultural context and historical influence that they have, aside from using that to gauge the vague, usually universally applicable sentiment behind the actual material. How they were meant to be experienced seems irrelevant to me. It's all just music and art, and I basically think that even things that were intended to be presented one way could potentially work better if hypothetically presented another way (based on the what I value and what I don't). That's the type of comment that this is.

For example, there were a lot of things about cultural phenomenons like the punk or hippie psychedelic movement that, as an actual movement/ideology, I don't really care that much for and might find kind of misguided, silly, and a breeding ground for all kinds of undesirable people and ideas, yet I think that a lot of the music that came from them were brilliant and powerful because they happened to be brilliant and powerful music. That's kind of where I come at this from. I love a lot of rock music, but I reject some of the parameters in which they're traditionally meant for. In no way do I care about respecting or upholding the actual principles of rock and roll.

 

[Leafsdude7]

Yes. As a matter of fact, the fact that I expressed a similar view about how that quality seems pretty hollow to me in the "Greatest Frontman in Music" thread and pissed off a few posters who were annoyed by that sentiment is actually what made me think of the hockey one. I hate stadium rock. It feels like a complete sideshow to me. To me it should be a chance to see a musical performance, not a chance to participate in a rally/party.

In fact, an ADDITIONAL issue I have with concerts that I don't with hockey games is that when the crowd is deafening, I find that the music actually suffers most of the time (whereas in hockey, the players seem like they do play better as a result of the support). I'm blown away by the novelty of seeing footage of The Beatles walking into Shea Stadium with the screaming army of fans of course, but to me that's all it is-- novelty. Give me an intimate concert where the audience is in hushed anticipation and only react between performances, and where the charisma/stage presence of the "frontman" comes from jokey banter between performances any day. Wild, impulsive/primative/erratic movement by the performer, I'm all for, but when it feels like they're putting on a show for the crowd outside of the music, I don't. I just prefer the experience when it's pure and minimal.

The ideal for me is when you get to see a band perform live in a recording studio with no audience. I find that stuff really cool. And also, to me, that early footage of Zeppelin performing to a speechless audience who has never heard anything like it before (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJZHh-FiRz0) feels like an infinitely more cool experience to watch than watching sold-out-stadium era Zeppelin perform to hollers and screams. Performing to silence somehow feels more electrifying to me to me than performing to mayhem.

The worst thing (for both hockey and concerts) is when I'm actually there and the people around me actually seem to get mad at me for not actively participating as hard as they are and sometimes even try to guilt me into doing it or physically force me to raise my arms or something-- that stuff's infuriating. That's why I prefer to just stay away from concerts altogether.

I definitely know what you mean. My primary interest when it comes to anything music-related is the music. I go to very few concerts. I'd definitely rather watch a concert DVD where the audio has been properly balanced to the point where you can hear it all clearly, even if there's a screaming audience, rather than go to a concert where you're not always lucky enough to get a spot where the audio balanced is optimized.

I don't think I necessarily agree with the hockey viewpoint, though. Part of the experience, to me, is the crowd participation and the noise. After all, in most arenas you can't even see much more than specs for players from half the seats cause you're so far away (although with big-screens in NHL rinks now, that's less of a problem, but I haven't been to an NHL game in about 10-15 years).

So in the 60s, the Beatles were definitely a sweet and hot band. The screaming girls? Oh, that's the point. You can't deny that that is the point of the music.

I'll agree with the rest, but this is just false. All 4 of the Beatles were very vocal about how much they hated being unable to hear themselves over the crowds, even back in the pre-Hard Days Night era. It, along with Lennon's "Bigger than Jesus" faux pas and the hooplah and security headaches that resulted from it, were the major reasons they quit playing live shows (their experimentation in the studio was likely also a reason, but much more minor than the other two).

It really wasn't until The Who, KISS and bands of that nature that the screaming fans and the whole "entertainment first" live shows became a thing. The Beatles were probably the first band that made it clear that was a reasonable target to shoot for, but I think it's pretty clear it was never something the Beatles themselves wanted.

Yeah I reread your post after I made my comment, but I think my point is still valid because it was part of the "2016 is the worst year" discussion going on. In terms of what you actually did say, yeah it is a personal thing but I wonder if there is a bit more public to it because she was a public figure. She was Princess Leia, in a franchise that just brought out a new movie and is probably the biggest franchise in film history. To find out what she is going through might feel like we're all invested because we've all seen Star Wars and we all know who she is.

I'm pretty sure Shareefruck's point is that, although we know her name and her career, the point is we really don't know her, or any celebrity. Not on a personal level. I mean, through interviews and charity work we might get a basic idea of who they are, but we still don't really know them, even when people say "they're so real" during said interviews and whatnot. Same with athletes and other public figures.

From that perspective, his point is very valid. What do we, as fans of a person's work, whether through their chosen media or their charitable and awareness work, have to claim that we have any legitimate perspective in their deaths? I honestly think a major problem in our society today is our vicarious living through famous people's lives, as though we are somehow acquaintances or friends and we somehow force ourselves to believe we care about them when we really don't have a clue who they even really are. I really don't think it's healthy, nor is it realistic. It's a pipe dream.