Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[timehat]

This as opposed to someone who works hard, practices like mad, and works very hard to make something new and inspiring, something that is trying to redefine the boundaries of music... Yeah, but they're just "wankers."

And in direct response to your quote, I think Pixies, with relatively simple music, stretched the boundaries of music far further than Yes. Nirvana stretched those boundaries further than Asia. Interpol has reshaped popular music in this last little while far more than Genesis did.

I guess what I'm saying here is that in songwriting the songwriting should take precedence, and the technical ability should come under scrutiny far afterwards, if at all.

I agree with the second part of what you are saying, but your examples in the first part are deep bullshit.

[Johnny C]

Oh man, I have a job interview in half an hour but as soon as I get back I've got some words for you guys.

[timehat]

Oh man, I have a job interview in half an hour but as soon as I get back I've got some words for you guys.

Wait, I sorta take it back. Asia sucks. Otherwise yeah.

[Johnny C]

I'm also not defending the? REAL "wankers," the types of people who do write music for the sole purpose of showing off instrumental chops. That stuff leaves me as cold and empty as the next person.

Essentially this is what you needed to say in the first place!

However, I move my attentions to the rest of your post. I don't think poignacy has anything to do with how technical your playing is. The quote about the kid with the cheap acoustic guitar is bullshit? I disagree. What that means is, the songwriting comes first. Always. Period. That gets lost by so many people who flaunt their knowledge of music theory. And yeah, the theory comes out in the songwriting, in that I know I'm playing in the key of A, for example. But I hardly ever end my songs on a classic cadence, if you know what I mean. The "writing strictly linear music" - well, I suppose that all comes down to preference. And I don't see a point in drawing a line between "simple because it's all they can do" and "simple because they would rather do it." There's a great story in Please Kill Me (I will push it til you all read it) in which Dee Dee Ramone auditions for Television and has no idea where a C is, so Richard Hell is telling him, "No, no, man, C." And Dee Dee just moves up one fret and looks up at Hell like a puzzled puppy dog.

Please don't try to argue the effectiveness of the Ramones' music. It's simple because that's what they knew how to do, but it's good music because it's so simple and so don't-give-a-fuck.

And as for Nirvana, well the only boundary they pushed is they created a world in which musical talent no longer became a pre-requisite for being a musician

They created a world in which people realized, "Hey, hair metal is actually quite shit. Why did I even buy this Warrant album, anyways?" That's good enough for me; however, that they put two great albums under their collective belt is even better.

The "no-talent" thing is an absolute red herring. I hate to break it to you, but bands with no talent existed well before the nineties and will continue to exist. And why should musical training be a prerequisite for being a musician? Do I have to attend seminars on the English language before I write a story (I haven't)? Do I have to draw nudes for an hour a day for four years before I attempt to make art (I haven't - I took AP Art and instantly started concentrating on developing a portfolio)? What makes music any different?

I appreciate that you aren't arguing on behalf of the artists who, when their recorded output is playing, make the listener feel as if he should set a box of Kleenex by the speakers, move into the next room and shut the door to give the music some "alone time," but I still contest your position on there being any prerequisite for making music beyond an ear for a tune.

And Timehat, you're right. Those examples were a dick move. Although I'm glad you agree Asia suck completely.

[KharBevNor]

Do I have to attend seminars on the English language before I write a story? Do I have to draw nudes for an hour a day for four years before I attempt to make art?

If you look at pretty much anyone of any consequence in the fields of art and music: Yes. Life drawing, I must say, is about the most essential thing for not making your art suck balls ever. There's a reason why life drawing is even a component of foundation media courses. Of course, you can vanity publish your short stories or put your images on deviantart as much as you want, and I will not call you a novelist or an artist. Put quite simply: if you don't want to put any effort in to being a musician, then you shouldn't be a fucking musician. If you don't want to put in the effort to explore the tools, techniques and methods of your medium, why fucking work in it? I wouldn't trust someone who knew nothing of colour theory to do my interior design, so why should I respect someone who can't even play the fucking guitar properly when he or she wants to put music in to my fucking ears. I can just about respect some of the sloppier punk bands for their intent and enthusiasm, but the kid with acoustic guitar archetype is just post-modernism gone wrong.

[Storm Rider]

Put quite simply: if you don't want to put any effort in to being a musician, then you shouldn't be a fucking musician. If you don't want to put in the effort to explore the tools, techniques and methods of your medium, why fucking work in it?

Man, I was about halfway through saying this in about 5 times as many words.

[Johnny C]

But who decides what artists have weight and consequence, though? Who are the arbiters of this all-encompassing field of worthiness to create? I think the answers are "no-one" and "no-one," to tell you the truth, and I think in matters of what you'll note is all subjective opinion that is the way it should be.

[timehat]

Put quite simply: if you don't want to put any effort in to being a musician, then you shouldn't be a fucking musician.

I feel this way about my own approach to musicianship, but for some reason I have a hard time holding other people to that standard. I do generally appreciate well-learned and well-practiced musicians, but there is a lot of music I enjoy that may not have the same sort of technical or theoretical finesse, but still maintains a strong emotional connection or spirit of creativity and inventiveness. I think now is a good time to bring up Slint, since everyone's been mentioning them lately. They fit the bill perfectly here. The playing on Spiderland is far from perfect, but what is clear is that the musicians really did care to try to think outside of the box to some degree and come up with something rather striking. I think many musicians would do better to take a more serious approach to the craft side of what they do, but the fact is that art is not science. I mean, look at serialism, which can be taken apart and combined in so many fashions that are often so complex that they all just sound the same. It does create a certain mood, I think, often very tense and anxious sounding, but the thing is that a lot of people who treat their music very mathematically give very little thought to how it sounds in a general sense or what sort of feelings it evokes. That is not to say that music cannot be and should not be treated with some sort of sophistication and complexity, it's just that there's a careful balance between technique and concept, skill and feeling, intellect and emotion; not all great music encompasses all of these things equally, and that's part of what makes the world of music so diverse and rich. In retrospect, I suppose I am not even arguing against your statement, but rather at the perceived extension of your statement which I believe goes along the lines of "complexity and technique in art come foremost". Of course, I am not accusing you of positing this sentiment, but just in case someone read it way, here's my rebuttal.

[Storm Rider]

But who decides what artists have weight and consequence, though? Who are the arbiters of this all-encompassing field of worthiness to create? I think the answers are "no-one" and "no-one," to tell you the truth, and I think in matters of what you'll note is all subjective opinion that is the way it should be.

I'm not saying that my opinion is the only opinion, I'm saying that I don't want to pay people to produce music if they show no indication of being good musicians. I think that's within my grounds as a consumer.

[David_Dovey]

Essentially this is what you needed to say in the first place!

However, I move my attentions to the rest of your post. I don't think poignacy has anything to do with how technical your playing is. The quote about the kid with the cheap acoustic guitar is bullshit? I disagree. What that means is, the songwriting comes first. Always. Period. That gets lost by so many people who flaunt their knowledge of music theory.

No, I believe my point about the kid with the broken guitar stands. It takes someone of immense natural talent to pick up a guitar and with no experience to churn out something that is going to be genuinely intriguing and interestin and emotionally engaging. It's possible, but it's a one in a million ting. For most of us mere mortals, it takes some semblance of musical knowlege to be able to produce something that isn't utter atonal shit. Once again, I'd like to clarify my viewpoint. I'm not saying that you have to know everything about music or be Berklee trained or whatever, but it's just fact that someone who is knowlegeable about music and music theory will be able to make better music (and I know that "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective terms) than someone who isn't. Like I said, sometimes there are exceptions like The Ramones, but they ARE exceptions, not the rule.

Essentially, Khar has already made the point I'm trying to make, and he did it way more eloquently than I could ever hope to

[The Eyeball Kid]

But who decides what artists have weight and consequence, though? Who are the arbiters of this all-encompassing field of worthiness to create? I think the answers are "no-one" and "no-one," to tell you the truth, and I think in matters of what you'll note is all subjective opinion that is the way it should be.

There's just basic basic stuff. Even when I'm writing music reviews (the lowest form of anything, i guess) i draw on everything i know about writing - from basic grammer to literary techniques. Guys like Stephen King are so popular partly because they know how to plot their stories.

I would submit that alot of the singer/songwriters I like might not be very sophisticated as musicians, but they might be very good as poets, short story writers, or songwriters... and okay musicians. Bob Dylan or the Hold Steady or the Mountain Goats aren't the most technically accomplished guys, but they know their poetry and thats what alot of people go for in their music, so it makes up for a lack of technical skill (though they do have that, THS especially). The Ramones might not be great musicians, but they could write catchy pop/punk songs (i don't care if thats a dirty genre now. thats what they were) and thats a seperate skill in itself.

The bands I like I usually like for reasons other than musicianship, but they're still professionals dedicated to certain crafts - Bob Dylan listened to a ton of folk songs and read a ton of poetry and yes he probably took a few writing classes, so his scribblings are better then stuff made with no background at all

[KharBevNor]

But who decides what artists have weight and consequence, though? Who are the arbiters of this all-encompassing field of worthiness to create? I think the answers are "no-one" and "no-one," to tell you the truth, and I think in matters of what you'll note is all subjective opinion that is the way it should be.

Who decides? A consensus between critics and audience probably. However, as I said, consider it in terms of other mediums, and you'll see the comparisons I'm trying to make. No one seriously argues that their aunt who dabbles in watercolours is better than Manet, or that their doodles on the crossword page they do when they can't finish the Sudoku have more to offer the field of illustration than Hokusai or Dore. There has been a similiair move towards simplicity in art as well as music, but it's all done by people with art degrees. You make better films if you know how to use an editing suite and a camera. You get what I'm saying? There may be the occasional fantastically talented outsider artist, or as eyeball kid said, those who are talented enough in their poetry, or perhaps just have a naturally beautiful voice, but mainly we're talking about the musical equivalent of nice watercolours of flowers. Pretty, maybe, but ultimately unsatisfying and pointless. There needs either to be a sophisitication of method or ideas, preferably both.

[KharBevNor]

And anyone can paint, and anyone can write.

Whether anyone can actually produce work of any quality, that's another matter entirely.

[VonDook]

I listen to music that sounds good to me.

I look at art that looks good to me.

I couldn't give two shits how much training they have or haven't had.  In fact, the more they seem to care about how much training they have had, the less I care.

[BeoPuppy]

And anyone can paint, and anyone can write.

Whether anyone can actually produce work of any quality, that's another matter entirely.

Hmm .. isn't quality determined not only by technical prowess but also by (emotional) content? I mean ... maybe Nirvana (there's that example again) weren't really technically gifted but you cannot deny them a certain substance. It may not be musical genius but at times ... wasn't it possibly art?

[Yossarian]

"Panic at the disco" - for me clearly the most pretentious (that is "pretentious" in the classical and negative meaning of quote: "making a claim to distinction or importance, esp. undeservedly") Band lately.

[Ernest]

Propagandhi.  Yes, they're one of my favorite bands, but they do a lot of judging.

[Johnny C]

Guys, you're impeding a perfectly good derailment here.

Von Dook has the right attitude. And statements about sophistication of ideas ultimately negate any argument of technical training. You don't need to be trained to think.

It all comes back to this, guys:

I guess what I'm saying here is that in songwriting the songwriting should take precedence

In the end it doesn't matter - unless the song is highly autobiographical and you need information on the writer to make any judgement on the song - who's playing or singing or writing. It's the quality of the music that matters.

[David_Dovey]

In the end it doesn't matter - unless the song is highly autobiographical and you need information on the writer to make any judgement on the song - who's playing or singing or writing. It's the quality of the music that matters.

This is absolutely true. It just so happens that people who know what they're doing are more likely to make better quality music.

[Yossarian]

Guys, you're impeding a perfectly good derailment here.

Sorry! I didn't intend to interrupt your discussion - which I think fits perfectly nice on the subject.

[The Eyeball Kid]

I was actually arguing for the 'good music takes skill and practise and study'. I was just saying that musicians who might not be the most technically accomplished musicians are popular because they put in the hard yards in other areas. Bob Dylan didn't just pick up a pen and write 'Like A Rolling Stone' - he spend 3 or 4 years playing other people's songs and hanging out with folkies, then he wrote a song based on traditional folk song structures ('Song for Woody Guthrie'), then he wrote a bunch of slightly more original songs that were still based on folk music (i'm counting stuff like 'Times They Are A Changin' and 'Blowin in the Wind' here) and then he listened to some rock and roll (which he'd been doing for ages) and through it all he was reading a shitload of poetry and composing it too... and then eventually he got to where he could write brilliant stuff.

I think the most extreme examples of the 'taking classes, but not in music' are bands like Augie March, The Decemberists and the Mountain Goats, who are good but sometimes pretentious 'cause they seriously studied literature in university. Pretentious lyrics sometiems (but not always) but alot of it scans as poetry

I like that in my music, so i don't mind of musically it isn't all that complex. If you're into complex instrumentation you probably don't mind some simple lyrics and I bet there are plenty of bands I haven't heard yet that have both.

As for 'pretension' it all depends. If you're writing about Alexander the Great 'cause you want to show off how smart you are then you're just being pretentious. If you're writing about him 'cause you think 'Alexander wept, for their were no more worlds to conquer' is a kickass thing to put in a rock song, then you're ok.

I think thats an Iron Maiden song, but i haven't heard it yet

[The Eyeball Kid]

And anyone can paint, and anyone can write.

Whether anyone can actually produce work of any quality, that's another matter entirely.

we've traded places from last year haven't we??

johnny is right though, who is to say what is quality?
ever heard anything by beat happening? they are one of my favourite bands. their music was insanely primitive. i'd listen to this over a 'technically proficient band' such as rush any day of the week.

Despite what i just said, I will agree with this. However, i bet the primativism was a choice, developed through practise and study and such.
I'll ask Calvin Johnson next sunday.

[timehat]

Guys, you're impeding a perfectly good derailment here.

Von Dook has the right attitude. And statements about sophistication of ideas ultimately negate any argument of technical training. You don't need to be trained to think.

This is absolutely true, but training can help you think better, and it can help you quickly plug in existing variable into your artistic/mental/whatever equations. I believe a large factor in art is how the art is affected by the creator's strengths and weaknesses in the area of translating ideas into some sort of form. These weaknesses can often create great strengths in other aspects of the art, such as the blind have a heightened sense of hearing, but I doubt many people choose to be blind just because they love hearing so much.

[Felix_]

I think the most extreme examples of the 'taking classes, but not in music' are bands like Augie March, The Decemberists and the Mountain Goats, who are good but sometimes pretentious 'cause they seriously studied literature in university. Pretentious lyrics sometiems (but not always) but alot of it scans as poetry

I like that in my music, so i don't mind of musically it isn't all that complex. If you're into complex instrumentation you probably don't mind some simple lyrics and I bet there are plenty of bands I haven't heard yet that have both.

As for 'pretension' it all depends. If you're writing about Alexander the Great 'cause you want to show off how smart you are then you're just being pretentious. If you're writing about him 'cause you think 'Alexander wept, for their were no more worlds to conquer' is a kickass thing to put in a rock song, then you're ok.

I think thats an Iron Maiden song, but i haven't heard it yet

I definitely agree here. The pretentiousness of bands is a characteristic that is within the eye or rather ear of the beholder, just as all music inherently is. To discuss why and why not some bands are pretentious page after page on a message board could be considered pretentious in and of itself.

I love the bands you mentioned though, and the track "Alexander the Great" by Iron Maiden is one of my faves. Good stuff. 

[Johnny C]

Sorry! I didn't intend to interrupt your discussion - which I think fits perfectly nice on the subject.

I think this is a burn. If so, well done.

This is absolutely true. It just so happens that people who know what they're doing are more likely to make better quality music.

I am going to start asking you for hard statistics in a second.

[Scytale]

I think the most extreme examples of the 'taking classes, but not in music' are bands like Augie March, The Decemberists and the Mountain Goats, who are good but sometimes pretentious 'cause they seriously studied literature in university. Pretentious lyrics sometiems (but not always) but alot of it scans as poetry

I like that in my music, so i don't mind of musically it isn't all that complex. If you're into complex instrumentation you probably don't mind some simple lyrics and I bet there are plenty of bands I haven't heard yet that have both.

As for 'pretension' it all depends. If you're writing about Alexander the Great 'cause you want to show off how smart you are then you're just being pretentious. If you're writing about him 'cause you think 'Alexander wept, for their were no more worlds to conquer' is a kickass thing to put in a rock song, then you're ok.

I think thats an Iron Maiden song, but i haven't heard it yet

I definitely agree here. The pretentiousness of bands is a characteristic that is within the eye or rather ear of the beholder, just as all music inherently is. To discuss why and why not some bands are pretentious page after page on a message board could be considered pretentious in and of itself.

I love the bands you mentioned though, and the track "Alexander the Great" by Iron Maiden is one of my faves. Good stuff. 

Yeah Iron Maiden take a lot of their lyrics \ song inspirations from movies and books, I don't think its pretentious at all, some of my favorite songs of theres are stuff like: Phantom of the Opera, Children of the Damned, To tame a Land (Frank Herbert wouldn't let them call it Dune), Rime of the Ancient Mariner and the afor(sp?) mentioned Alexander the Great).

[David_Dovey]

I am going to start asking you for hard statistics in a second.

I'm not too sure how easy it would be to get statistics in these sorts of situations, but I'd still be willing to assert that almost every one of your favourite songwriters have had some sort of music theory and instrument training at some point.

[Dimmukane]

Dream Theater (Especially John Petrucci, the show off bastard) Are extremely pretentious.

my problem with dream theatre is the singer, actually.  I can't stand his voice.  So instead I listen to Liquid Tension Experiment, essentially the same thing minus a vocalist.  And they have a song called Chewbacca.

as for the whole genre thing, some bands just have a whole bunch mixed in, and it's hard to say all 10 genres or whatever at once.  Cynic comes to mind.  Jazz New Wave Technical Fusion Melodic Death.  or something like that.

[timehat]

my problem with dream theatre is the singer, actually.? I can't stand his voice.? So instead I listen to Liquid Tension Experiment, essentially the same thing minus a vocalist.? And they have a song called Chewbacca.

as for the whole genre thing, some bands just have a whole bunch mixed in, and it's hard to say all 10 genres or whatever at once.? Cynic comes to mind.? Jazz New Wave Technical Fusion Melodic Death.? or something like that.

There's only one genre label for Cynic: rockin'.

[Dimmukane]

that works.

[CutMan]

I find it amusing that everyone seems to think that they themselve's
are the great and mighty decider of what is "quality" and "good" and
what is "bad" and "suck, as I like to put it.

No one has the right to decide what is quality, what matters to you in
this subject might not mean shit to someone else. Assuming that
what you like and think is the best should be considered
the best period is one of the most arrogant things
one can possibly do.

Sure, you can pretend that you have some sort of concrete evidence to
back up your opinion.

Proggressive bands or bands that do a lot of "excessive" playing.
You call them pretentious? Oh, that's interesting. So that genre
shouldn't exist? These people who enjoy "playing the shit" out
of their guitars and instruments should just conform to your
opinions? Ever thought that they're just playing the way they like?
As members of Dream Theater have said, they play how they want.
They write songs as long or short as they feel.

In fact, that applys to bands that dont "play the shit" out
of their instruments. Panic! At The Disco, for instance. They
write well crafted songs and implement a variety of styles into
their music. They do what they want, and people just so happen to
like it. *gasp* They're popular! But moving on. How do you know they're
"Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified."?
Do you know them personally? No, even better, are you a psychic? You inside their heads?

You. Don't. Know. Anything.

Everyone can write. Everyone can play music. Everyone can paint.
No one can decide if it is absolute "quality".

You either like it or you don't. Don't pretend you're a god.
You're so called "facts" are as personal and flimsy as any of
your other opinions.

By the by, this is a rather intense first post I realize, I dont intend any meanness in it,
and I'm not directly trying to slap anyone in the face about anything. This is
just the first topic I entered.

[David_Dovey]

Oh shit. You've gone and done it now.

[CutMan]

Oh shit. You've gone and done it now.

*laughs* Yeah, I suppose I have, I'm sure I've pissed off
both ends of the spectrum.

[Johnny C]

Man, you brought me back to the glory days of MWhaling and oh adddison. It's all good.

[Storm Rider]

i want to care about your opinion but i just can't

it's like when you shine a flashlight against the sun

insignificant

[CutMan]

i want to care about your opinion but i just can't

it's like when you shine a flashlight against the sun

insignificant

And I could claim you're insignifigant and inferior to me too..
but I'm not an arrogant bastard who pretends to be better
than other people.

You don't care because you want to cling to the idea
that the music you happen to like is better than anyone
else. You choose not to care because you CAN'T answer me.

Or can you? I welcome proof that I'm wrong. But what you
just did? Yeah, cop out.

[Storm Rider]

Dude, I was being sarcastic.  You're new, so you don't remember when that post was originally made. I was referencing the 'oh aaaddison' user (or however that was spelled) before he got banned for being a dick.

Basically, I was kidding around. Don't take shit too seriously.

[CutMan]

Dude, I was being sarcastic.  You're new, so you don't remember when that post was originally made. I was referencing the 'oh aaaddison' user (or however that was spelled) before he got banned for being a dick.

Basically, I was kidding around. Don't take shit too seriously.

Ach, insert foot in mouth, terribly sorry about that.
I'll slow down there and make sure things arent just jokes,
hell, I make enough of those.

And I gotta see that original post, by the way. Is it still around?

[Storm Rider]

You should really read the entire thread.

Also, you should take note that if I ever fail to capitalize or punctuate my posts properly, it's a pretty clear sign I'm being messing around.

[CutMan]

With pleasure.

And noted.

[CutMan]

Excuse the double post, but I gotta say, that topic is
hilarious. Thanks for linking me, seriously, I can't stop laughing. XD

[The Eyeball Kid]

The new Hold Steady album starts with the line "Some nights I think that Jack Kerouac was right" and goes on to mention John Berryman, an author i hadn't heard of (and i reckon i'm pretty well-read and an English major and stuff).... and my interview with the Mountain Goats had John Darnielle listing heaps of authors as influences... and he's written songs about 12 century Roman history

They don't act pretentious and I love them to death, so you get back into the same debate... are they being pretentious - knowledgable for the sake of showing off knowledge- or do they genuinely just like talking about books? considering that THS go on to reference Billy Joel and Meatloaf (and the Mountain Goats) and John Darnielle talks about obscure Nintendo games on his blog i'm thinking non-pretension.... but then i get back to an album starting with "Some nights I think that Jack Kerouac was right"....

[spinning_Starlet]

My list of pretentious bands is this:

ANY local band that has played at my pub (with one or two exceptions) who has EVER said "yeah. But i'm in the band"

FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!! It really makes very little difference to me.

*ahem*

Sorry.

[BeoPuppy]

LITTLE difference ... but not: 'no difference' ...

[spinning_Starlet]

This is true.

The difference it make is i am actually now going to be even more sarcastic and mean to you* than i generally (sp?) am to customers.

 

i love my job.


*general. not you personally.

[BeoPuppy]

Tell me the place and the name of the bar and you know ... you might be able to yell at me in person!

[spinning_Starlet]

The Market Tavern.
Bradford
England.

But Hurry.
It is closing on new years eve. it is its last night open.

the week before it closes i am allowed to be as mean as i want, seeing as we do not need to encourage the customers to, y'know... come back at all.

i cannot wait!

[KharBevNor]

Hmm .. isn't quality determined not only by technical prowess but also by (emotional) content? I mean ... maybe Nirvana (there's that example again) weren't really technically gifted but you cannot deny them a certain substance. It may not be musical genius but at times ... wasn't it possibly art?

I never said that technical prowess is important. The key is your vocabulary, whether it be visual, linguistic or musical. If you haven't got the language in which to express yourself in a medium, you aren't going to be able to produce quality work, no matter how good your ideas or how strong and profound your feelings. You need to know the tricks of the trade, the theories of colour or music or grammar or whatever that will allow whatever it is inside you to make the transition into a strictured medium.

[ScrambledGregs]

I've sat here for five minutes now trying to come up with a single artist or band I feel is the most pretentious, but I can't come up with anything. Maybe I don't see pretentious as necessarily a bad thing?? At the very least I think that the handful of bands I wanted to use, only one or two parts of the definition of pretentious fit them.

I think Ryan Adams is pretentious, but only because he records and releases so many albums Robert Pollard is telling him to slow down.

[Dimmukane]

The Market Tavern.
Bradford
England.

But Hurry.
It is closing on new years eve. it is its last night open.

the week before it closes i am allowed to be as mean as i want, seeing as we do not need to encourage the customers to, y'know... come back at all.

i cannot wait!

hehe, sounds like a good time.  if i could, i'd fly over there just so you could yell at me and i could start a brawl.