artix_linux_user wrote:
People using the word truth like you did are in my eyes not smart at all
artix, I don't want you to get mad. I like you, and read all your posts, When we're discussing a serious topic, I tend to agree with you. (I realize you don't like my humor at all. And that's cool. I strongly suspect that's a cultural difference).
But you've made an unfair accusation toward Carl. First of all, you didn't watch his video, so you don't how he "used the word truth". Because you're basing your evaluation entirely upon his video title, all you know is that Carl is (probably) going to assert some "truth". You don't know what that truth is. You don't know if it's "not smart at all". You don't know if it's more important than the theory of relativity. I watched the video so I can tell you precisely what the underlying truth was. (ie I can tell you exactly how Carl used the word truth). It is:
There's no one right (ie true) way to make music.
If you think that's "dumb" and not a valid use of truth, then you should argue why you've come to that conclusion.
There are people who don't read your messages, because your use of english is unfamiliar to them. Specifically, they find your grammar difficult to decipher. They could probably understand your content if they just took the time to figure out exactly what you mean. (I do. But then, I like to study the way people use language). But they aren't willing to take the time. So they don't judge you on content, and instead dismiss you as "not smart at all" based upon much more trivial criteria: your grammar. Even worse, I suspect that there are plenty of readers who judge you based upon the unconventional way you format your posts. (Short and long lines intermixed, unusual punctuation such as long streams of "................" where an english native would put a paragraph break, etc).
Do you think it's fair for someone to judge the merits of what you're saying based upon trivial things like grammar, punctuation, a statement taken out of context, false association (like largos drawing comparison of Carl's video to other "clickbait" on youtube based solely upon text search of the titles of videos, etc), rather than your content?
Well then, don't do that to Carl.
P.S. I think a title for Carl's video that piques interest while garnering less knee-jerk reactions would be "Trivial tips don't make you a better composer". But honestly, I'd recommend re-editing the video to vastly trim down the opening critique of "tips videos". It's not as interesting as the actual demonstration of possible, varying approaches toward composition. You want to get to that latter info as quickly as possible. So I'd trim down the intro to:
You'll often see videos with titles touting some tip to help you improve your skills as a composer. Unfortunatety, the tip is too often presented as an isolated approach, separated from other approaches that greatly increase or decrease the value of that tip. Because of this, such tips don't help you improve your skills as a composer. In this video, I want to present the entire process, from start to finish, of how I approach writing an orchestral score. At various stages of this process, I'll discuss and demonstrate different approaches you can take to achieve some goal. This is important because one particular approach doesn't produce the same results for every person. I'll therefore be presenting an approach that you can customize to work for you.