Lurker > man101

ParanoidObsessive posted...

lolno

You're still missing the point of my dismissiveness. You keep saying that "they have like 3 singles that are widely known and popular, yet all of said singles come from their debut album", and that statement is objectively wrong. Speaking as a non-GnR fan who is one of the few people on this board old enough to have been listening to Top 40 radio for the entirety of their career, I'm in a unique position to tell you that you're basically full of shit.

I'm not talking about their multiple albums over the last 25 years, I'm talking about their career in the late 80s/early 90s. Their first THREE albums (four if you count Use Your Illusion I and II separately (but I won't) sold extremely well (all went multi-platinum). Their successful singles came from ALL THREE albums, and 6 charted top 10, while 2 others charted top 50 (and about 2-3 others used to get significant airplay even without officially charting). They got TONS of fucking airplay at the time, and even today you'll still hear any number of those singles still get airplay on any station that still plays music from that era (which I do, which is how I know).

No, it isn't just Welcome to the Jungle, Paradise City, and Sweet Child of Mine that gets any recognition today. Don't Cry, November Rain, and Knockin' On Heaven's Door still get pretty regular exposure, Patience still crops up from time-to-time, and even their cover of Live and Let Die gets played every now and then. And hell, I'm pretty sure I've heard Mr. Brownstone more in the last 10 years than I did when it was actually released (it wasn't a major hit at the time).

And that's deliberately ignoring You Could Be Mine, which benefited hugely from the Terminator 2 tie-in at the time, and still gets airplay now because of how big it was then.

They had TONS of airplay during that 5 year or so period from '87 to '92 (give or take), and nostalgia for that has fueled replays on "classic rock" stations right up to the current day. If you're not hearing them today, you almost certainly aren't listening to any stations that actually play 80s/90s rock, which sort of makes your observation meaningless.

Your entire premise is flawed right out of the gate, and literally nothing you've said since has really addressed that in any meaningful way.

Or to sum up - lolno.

Arguing that more of their songs are popular because you hear random singles occasionally on dedicated 80s-90s rock radio doesn't support the argument that their later work is also widely well known. You're going to the one and only place that would ever still play those songs. I'm also not a GnR fan either and I have been periodically listening to generic rock/metal stations since the 90s and I couldn't even hum a part of any of the other singles you named after Knockin on Heaven's Door. Maybe I always missed it when they happened to play those songs or maybe the reality is they just don't get as much airtime as you think. The point is non-rock fans mostly only know the singles from Appetite for Destruction because they have transcended random era throwback radio play. I'm not talking about how well known they are among people who have actively been listening to their genre the entire time. I'm talking about the general public consciousness.

Yet all that is just nitpicking because I never argued they weren't well known. My original point was and still is that GnR has a small body of work relative to their success: They have released 4 albums of original material (5 if you're being generous and count a double album as 2) in 39 years with no major hiatuses. Even a comparable band like Metallica with a famously sluggish album release schedule in recent years has twice that many. Most rock bands who have been active continuously since the early 80s have anywhere from 12-20 albums. Their last album released 16 years ago, or nearly half their career ago.

My job which never needed to be 40 hours a week in office has remained partially remote so now I actually only "go in" to work 2-3 days a week for a grand total of 15 hours and i do the rest from home. Still getting the same amount of work done to the same quality level but now also getting chores done and working out regularly again.

Fucking L Block. Between that and Undertale I'm glad the contests died. Just a month long troll session from outside websites.

BlackScythe0 posted...

You're just going to have an answer for anyone pointing out how weird your question is aren't you?

How is that not a valid answer? Comparing a band that's been defunct for 30 years to an active one in terms of popularity and touring is literally textbook apples and oranges.
ParanoidObsessive posted...

lolno

Lolyeah. Even if you release ten albums and 30 singles doesn't mean any of them got a lick of airtime. GnR has 3-4 famous singles that non fans know. None of their singles in the past 20 years have hit any significant chart level outside a couple european countries.

THEGODDAMNBATMA posted...

There's really no harm in it. People get so up in arms over difference in belief

You just explained perfectly why forcing more people into religion is a terrible idea and contradicted yourself.

OhhhJa posted...

Well yeah... like 99% of famous artists are known by like one album, maybe 2, and the rest is only for the super fans

Yes but not all "famous" artists are anywhere near the level of GnR. They are literally world famous and their music still gets heavy radio play and they tour a lot. But there are plenty of other bands who are slightly less famous who have hit singles from across multiple albums.

Venixon posted...

Oh you have got to be trolling.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/cbe155ef.jpg

One is effectively a double album and live albums don't have new material. The rest of those stats line up with what I said. Just because each of their albums *had singles* doesn't mean they ever got any significant radio play. I sure as shit don't hear anything other than the appetite for destruction singles anywhere, ever.

GameReviews posted...

Nirvana immediately comes to mind.

They only had 3 studio album, only 2 of which were commercially successful at the time, and yet they are regarded by many as one of the most influential bands of all time.

The hard comparison there is they're defunct. Hard to know if or how many more albums they would've produced over the following 30 years or so. Or if they'd still be touring.

I was musing over this with my wife in the car yesterday when Paradise City came on the radio. They're not technically a one hit wonder because they have like 3 singles that are widely known and popular, yet all of said singles come from their debut album. And despite the band being 40 years old they only have 4-5 albums and no one really listens to the others, or at the very least they never produced any singles that stuck around. Yet despite all this they still tour and headline shows regularly and they're one of the best selling bands in history.

Who else is anywhere near as popular with so few hits or albums?

The idea that the CE board might some day be reduced to a single digit number of people who are able to access it is actually amusing. Like a battle royale where they compete to see who can troll or insult the others hardest without being modded and banned from the board.

darkknight109 posted...

The way that conceptualized it for me was that you can easily understand how life looks like to a billionaire by just adjusting the prices of everything around you.

Like, let's put the "average" billionaire pay at $600 million a year - that's about 10,000 times the average US annual salary. So in order to figure out how much something costs to a billionaire, pretend you're an average Joe and divide the cost of anything by 10,000.

Ultra-luxury hotel room? Those can be $10,000 a night; to a billionaire, that costs $1 a night. High-end Lambo? The Aventador SVJ Roadster starts at $575,000 - to our billionaire, that's like spending $57.50. Luxury property? $100 mil will get you into the top 25 most expensive properties on the planet; to our billionaire, that's a $10,000 purchase - certainly not something you're doing on the daily, but doable with some saving and planning.

Executive assistant to run your life for you? Pay her the equivalent of $20 a year and you're set. Want a private jet to travel the world in style? For somewhere between $2,000 and $10,000 (plus maintenance and salaries that will wind up being a couple bucks a year to you), it's yours. Perhaps you're the philanthropic sort and want a building named after you? Shell out ~$10,000 and you can buy a decent new hospital for a community in need.

It gets kind of unreal when you start putting real numbers to it.

Now reverse the equation and imagine a billionaire deciding to shell out what is the equivalent of a regular person getting a mortgage. They could mortgage an entire country. Or buy the moon.

This country was founded by "immigrants" and there have been immigrants flooding in ever since. One political party always tries to use it as a tool to galvanize voters, promising it's killing the country, because they don't want stupid, gullible voters to look closely at any of their other policies. This country is and always has been built on immigration and anyone who tries to claim otherwise is delusional or intentionally disingenuous.

TomNook posted...

It's not being cut out.

Would you refuse to eat at a restaurant if they didn't pay a blacksmith to forge their eating utensils?

That's such a horrible false equivalency. Restaurants buy supplies from someone else who makes or grows them. If a restaurant is only able to stay in business because they're stealing then damn right I'm refusing to eat there.

Revelation34 posted...

Good luck pirating a board game.

The obvious implication being that I wouldn't buy a board game with AI art.

TomNook posted...

AI art is good for small companies. One of the cost factors for board game and card game designers is paying an absurd amount to an artist for all the pieces. Now it can be done for free, allowing more freedom for game creation.

If you can't afford to pay for a vital component of what you're trying to do you either need to fundraise or take out a loan, or negotiate with a subcontractor directly for some alternative arrangement. If none of those options work, maybe your idea isn't marketable and doesn't deserve to be made.

There's no excuse for a business of any size to just cut out part of the process in creating a product. If you aren't willing to make an effort to pay someone for their work, why should anyone pay you for yours? Maybe if you couldn't afford to pay an artist for your game and use AI instead then maybe I'm too poor to buy your game and I'll pirate it.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If they are creating art, they are, by literal definition, an artist.

You could argue to which degree they influence the act of creation, but that's one mother of a slippery slope because every artist uses tools. There is a significant difference between someone who fingerpaints on a cave wall using self-crafted pigments and someone who draws on a computer tablet or manipulates a photograph in Photoshop, but they're all still artists.

Someone creating AI art still needs to have the skills necessary to tell it to create the image they're looking for, and to at least some degree they're still impressing their intentions and mental expectations onto the work. One could argue that there's a difference between someone who is micromanaging descriptions and commands versus someone who just types out a single short sentence, but there's also a difference between someone who spends months painting a masterpiece and someone who doodles on a napkin for 30 seconds.

People get hung up on the idea of the tool, but ultimately we're liking going to reach a point as the tech improves where the end product becomes almost indistinguishable from anything a human could create. Which can actually open doors for people to become more creative (like, say, someone who has ideas for a comic but lacks the skill to draw it, who can now potentially use the new tools to provide art - in exactly the same way most sprite-art comics allowed people who couldn't draw to still tell stories).

There are already AI that can write and perform songs you'd never realize wasn't composed by a human. The limiting factor isn't "technology bad, no human soul", the limiting factor is the tech is still in its infancy, and WILL improve. The future is coming whether people want it to or not.

For fun, go back and look at CGI animation in the early 90s and tell me if you think it had "soul" or would ever be anything other than a computer-generated abomination. Then think about the fact that nearly every cartoon today is animated via computer and hand-drawn cel-based animation is almost a dead art. Shit evolves.

The "skill" required to create AI art is the skill of typing something into a search engine. And you're completely glossing over the point that AI steals everything it does from what it can source on the Internet. A human can create art from scratch using only imagination, without ever having seen another single piece of art. AI can only emulate what it can steal, and if real artists stop producing new art then AI "art" can't evolve because its pool of material to steal isn't growing or changing. Just because you might think what AI produces looks or sounds as good as a human changes none of that.

Talk to a physician and literally just say everything you wrote there. Ask about TRT. But be aware it's expensive. Also if you're concerned about premature ejaculation I don't think increased testosterone is going to fix that. If anything might make it ever "worse." That's more of a mental thing.

shadowsword87 posted...

Ask it to generate it in a different style then. I was able to generate fairly realistic oil painting of a harbor by asking for it to be textured with a palette knife.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/7/7558f026.jpg

Real oil painter here. The texture in the background is far too thick and varied in the background and the foreground objects are relatively flat and uniform--the opposite of how it should be and how the eye perceives reality. Also the anatomy of the ships and their relative size is complete nonsense. If you think it looks good it's because you know nothing about art, composition, style, and/or you haven't really looked at it for very long. Same problem with all AI art.

Smallville posted...

what percent of that stadium by you did taxpayers pay for? like 90 percent of it? not the billionaire owner...etc...?

It was 50/50 State and private funding. And of course once it paid itself off 50% of the future profits did not then go back into the state.

There have been studies on the ROI of stadium investments by public funds and it pretty much shows across the board that they're bullshit scams that allow rich investors to get richer under the pretense of providing (temporary construction and shit-paying permanent) jobs.

Sports exist for entertainment, not to extort the citizens of their region, many of whom may not even watch said sport. Our taxes built a new football stadium like ten years ago and I'm still pissed about it. And of course they then priced all the seats out of reach of most of the population. If the coaches and players want a new stadium then they can shell out a couple bucks from their multimillion dollar contracts or they can fuck off.