Leaderboard

I download any file whenever available. However, Flex is right that sometimes the stream itself is perfectly fine to make a decision. If I were to YES something off a stream, it would be conditional on getting an actual copy of the file, since we'd have to post an actual MP3. Nothing more to add.

This man gets it! McRIB!

Well, everyone is too busy fighting over in Tropes Vs Women.

there isn't really a functional difference in those sentences

social sciences are not often based on observation of physically objective phenomena - the problem here, even in this thread, is that people keep saying that correlation does not imply causation (which is true) and then implying that it's possible for social sciences to do anything other than point out correlation (which is not) the reason why I, as such, say "arbitrary standards" is because you demand a kind of evidence that isn't actually real, and then denounce any idea that fails to present it like I said, whether or not sexist behavior is, in fact, caused directly by sexist media doesn't matter, because the question demands an answer that is not possible to ascertain

BTW checkout Spitfire's Black Friday Deals: https://www.spitfireaudio.com/editorial/features/black-friday-2015/ 25% off all individual products is just one of the deals. Vid of Albion ONE:

I think you may have misunderstood my post and as such I also don't understand yours

https://soundcloud.com/detective-tuesday/its-raining-somewhere-elsefeat-doug-perrynew one from Doug and I

I think it would be a long-ass time before I get into any serious orchestral work, if I ever did at all, but I do have orchestral needs not requiring hardcore orchestral skills to be addressed, so I need something to supplement my EWQLSO and OE1 seems to be the ticket. Looked fairly easily in my opinion.

Well, firstly, I don't think he was saying that, I think he was offering useful information to other readers since threads aren't in a vacuum. Albion ONE is $367 in their cyber sale that's happening in a couple days. How is that more expensive than OE1 and 2 combined? I'm talking about Albion ONE (remake of Albion Volume I, which by the way just came out, so you should go watch the videos for it) which is just the first out of 4 and the only one you need (the rest of the volumes are specific use-case and additional expressions). I'm not saying you have to go and get it, in fact my advice is always to buy something only if you're going to use it. But in terms of features, sound, and price, it is overall a much better option than OE1. If you feel like you're trying to get bang for your buck here, you should at least look at it, because I personally think OE1 isn't really a solid option at all. I'm a little more cautious probably because I've been burned by dropping money on seemingly good libraries that just don't really hold up after I start using them. Albion ONE I have used extensively, and it is the one library I recommend to people for "easy orchestra" because 1) it can be as simple or flexible as you want, 2) Spitfire's mics and hall are amazing, 3) the programming and articulations are excellent, and it even has polyphonic legato, 4) it covers the orchestra in a lot of useful subparts. OE1 by comparison 1) is kind of too simple, 2) has no sound mixing options, 3) doesn't have the same breadth of articulations and the programmig is more dated and 4) kind of traps you in some weirder, specific multis. However, I will say that if you want OE1 not for writing orchestral music but for the "one key full orchestra", then yes, it's a better option. Albion doesn't include any patches for cross-family writing.

You're taking the term "objectification" way too literally. Painting a picture or carving a sculpture of someone is not objectification. Yes, you're creating an object that depicts that person, but you're not reducing that person to an object. What objectification means is that you're considering people as things that you can use to fulfill your desires (or threaten them) rather than as people with thoughts and feelings of their own. If you treat women as "a thing I can have sex with" and nothing more, then you're objectifying women. If you treat black people as "a thing that might rob me" and nothing more, then you're objectifying black people. If you treat Muslims as "a thing that might target me with a terrorist attack" and nothing more, then you're objectifying Muslims. All of that is bigoted. Granted, not all objectification is inherently bigoted. If you buy something from a store and treat the cashier as nothing but "a thing that allows me to complete my purchase", then you're objectifying the cashier. (This is the phenomenon that allows people to treat service industry workers like complete shit and not feel bad about it.) That sort of objectification isn't bigoted (because it's not based on their gender, race, religion, etc), but it's still a pretty dick move. But that's completely outside the context of the conversation we've been having, so I didn't think it was worth making that distinction. Maybe I was wrong. In any case, defining objectification as depicting people in works of art is pretty laughably off base. Going back and rereading the posts you've made over the last few pages of this thread, I see nothing to indicate that you welcome criticism of a cultural nature. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, or maybe what you wrote wasn't as clear as you think. Either way, if we can agree that "hey, you know, this game is actually really bigoted in a lot of ways, which is to its detriment" is a valid criticism that one can make, then we don't actually have any disagreement on this point. She's not saying "playing a sexist game will make you a sexist", she's saying that sexist media contributes to sexist culture, and sexist culture contributes to sexist attitudes. I find it somewhat amusing that you include the paragraph addressed directly at the argument you're making (that people are not affected by the media they consume) but make no argument to refute it, you simply seem to take it on faith that it's ridiculous and dismiss it without actually analyzing it. The mistake you're making is the difference between a direct, immediate causal effect and a contribution to a larger, more general attitude. She's not saying "if you play sexist games, they will make you sexist". She's saying "sexist games contribute to sexist culture, which contributes to sexist attitudes". If you're a dedicated supporter of gender equality, then playing a sexist game isn't going to suddenly make you into a misogynist. But if you're constantly bombarded from all sides with the message that "women are things that hang around so that The Hero can prove his manliness and have sex with them", you don't think that that's going to affect your attitudes, if only unconsciously? How do you think people learn cultural attitudes? From the culture around them. And if that culture is telling them that women are sex objects, then, well, people are going to absorb that attitude. Again: that doesn't mean that people mindlessly believe whatever they see on TV/in movies/from games/etc. But it contributes to the problem. The best way to stop it from doing that is to get those games/movies/TV shows/etc to stop sending that message. That's what Sarkeesian is arguing for.

Whoof. Been sort of a hectic week, so I haven't been able to keep up with this thread. So, apologies for reaching back a few days to reply to posts from a few pages ago. I'm not saying that large breasts has to be a plot point to be legitimate -- I'm just saying that there's a significant difference between "this character has large breasts" and "this character is used for fanservice". If anyone's complaining about the former instead of the latter, I'd disagree with them. "Having large breasts" is not a bad thing and should not be treated like it is. I'm in no way suggesting that characters with large breasts should be avoided. What I'm saying is that characters used solely for the purpose of fanservice is a bad thing and should be avoided. Said fanservice characters often have large breasts, true, but it's not the large breasts that are the problem, it's the fact that they're used solely for fanservice. Strawman much, dude? No one's saying that lacking diversity is the same as slavery or that portraying a non-white character with a white actor is as bad as the Holocaust. We're just not saying that they're okay, either. Diversity is a good thing. It should be encouraged. Generally speaking, that means making an effort to get more non-white and non-male presence in media, since white and/or male people are already pretty well represented. You can question over how much of an effort is appropriate -- and such discussions are good things! -- but saying "we're not talking about genocide here man, just calm down" isn't a discussion, it's an attempt to prevent discussion by trivializing the subject matter. The hell it can't. Art is one of a variety of things that make up culture, and culture absolutely has an effect on people's attitudes. It's not as simple as "this TV show I watched had some racist attitudes, therefore I now believe that black people are subhuman scum", no, but that doesn't mean that it has no effect whatsoever. I wasn't giving objectification an out as not inherently sexist -- it is, the word "objectification" literally means that you're reducing somebody to an object instead of a person, which is inherently bigoted. I was saying that a female character having large breasts isn't inherently objectifying. You can certainly objectify someone with large breasts -- and arguably people with large breasts are objectified more often -- but the problem is still the objectification, not the large breasts. This seems to presuppose that a work's cultural impact isn't something that can be considered to its benefit or detriment. Movies like The Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are films that are known for two things: being legitimately revolutionary works in the medium of motion pictures, and being racist as all hell. Is it unfair to point out both of these things when discussing these movies? Should we be required to ignore the racism and focus purely on the cinematography? Is the content of the work somehow less relevant than the technical aspects of it? I don't think anyone's actually doing that. Claiming that watching a movie or playing a game made you a bigot is patently absurd. Insisting that you're not responsible for your own actions, but the artist behind the media you consumed is instead, is equally ridiculous. People criticizing media on cultural grounds aren't saying that that media is responsible for bigotry. They're saying that that media contributes to a bigoted culture, which doesn't absolve members of that culture of responsibility for their actions, but does contribute to the problem.

Obviously we need to bring back December is Reviews Month again and have some incentives. Maybe albums from OC Records?