Does analyzing miss the point in music?

[ksjazzguitar]

Don't you ever sing for the sheer pleasure of it,

No, I hate singing.

or play your guitar for the joy of it?

Not really. If I am, then it is an attempt to connect with myself. But most of the time, that I play alone, it is to prepare to play in front of others.

Other people listening has nothing to do with it,

[After commenting that I needed weed if I wanted to get philosophical.] That's because you're too wrapped up in the theory. Weed has nothing to do with it, just throw out the bullshit and get back to the basics. What is the point of music, not in 21st century USA, but worldwide and throughout history?

I guess the bill to legalize "off-hand (slightly) humorous remarks" didn't pass either. The point was that I "needed" it to discuss sophomoric, pseudo-philosophical questions like "Is it music if no one listens? Does the 'self' count as a listener? Is it an 'expression' if it does not communicate to others, to whom is it 'expressing'?" But thanks for taking the comment out of context and taking it way too seriously. The point was that those questions are silly. And from the context of my statement it should have been very inferrable that I don't use illegal drugs.

...but what has that (especially the skill bit) to do with the point of music?

To me (and apparently others) it has a lot to do with music. Knowledge helps me appreciate and to create musical expression. That is what's important to me.

A child can create music, albeit often in a primitive way, that can be magical to listen to.

Really? Where are you hearing this? I teach music to kids so I hear children playing music all the time. I'm proud of them for their hard work and am sometimes impressed with their progress, but (unless they've been training since an early age) I've never heard one that I would describe as "magical to listen to." I suppose if I were the parent it would be. I wonder why they don't sell CDs of untrained children playing music? Why are they not booking concert halls? Oh yeah, that's right, because it's crap.

If that's what gets you off, then go for it. But I'll take a well trained and practiced musician any day of the week.

Someone had to create music before anyone decided they wanted to listen, now why do you think they did that?

OK, not that I want to get dragged into childish, sophomoric chicken-and-egg arguments, but I could just as easily say that there needed to be a desire in the musician to be hear something. And his first instinct after he created his music? Run and get someone to hear it.

But that is all pointless. Anyone who has done any ethnomusicological work on stone age cultures knows that for them music is a communal event. They idea of a musician creating art for himself would be a strange concept to them. In those cultures songs usually served a function - party song, worship song, work song, mnemonic songs, story songs, etc. The idea of a solitary musician on a lonely hill creating for the sake of beauty would be ridiculous to them.

But if that's what music is for you, go for it. I listen to enjoy and I practice to get better at expressing myself to others. All that New-Age-touchy-feely-become-one-with-the-comsic-muffin stuff about singing for joy for myself? - I ain't got no use for it. I suspect my wife would have me locked up if I started to do that.

Peace,
Kevin

[fumblefingers]

Is it music if no one listens? Does the "self" count as a listener? Is it an "expression" if it does not communicate to others, to whom is it "expressing"?

I'd need to take up weed again to answer those questions. unfortunately, pro 19 failed.

If you don't mind, I like to do my "expressions" to other people and with as much skill as I can muster.

Peace,
Kevin

yes, yes, and yes.

might as well, your neighbor JB is guv in CA now. so, fire it up!

makes sense. no problemo.

[fumblefingers]

No, I hate singing.



Not really. If I am, then it is an attempt to connect with myself. But most of the time, that I play alone, it is to prepare to play in front of others.






I guess the bill to legalize "off-hand (slightly) humorous remarks" didn't pass either. The point was that I "needed" it to discuss sophomoric, pseudo-philosophical questions like "Is it music if no one listens? Does the 'self' count as a listener? Is it an 'expression' if it does not communicate to others, to whom is it 'expressing'?" But thanks for taking the comment out of context and taking it way too seriously. The point was that those questions are silly. And from the context of my statement it should have been very inferrable that I don't use illegal drugs.




To me (and apparently others) it has a lot to do with music. Knowledge helps me appreciate and to create musical expression. That is what's important to me.




Really? Where are you hearing this? I teach music to kids so I hear children playing music all the time. I'm proud of them for their hard work and am sometimes impressed with their progress, but (unless they've been training since an early age) I've never heard one that I would describe as "magical to listen to." I suppose if I were the parent it would be. I wonder why they don't sell CDs of untrained children playing music? Why are they not booking concert halls? Oh yeah, that's right, because it's crap.

If that's what gets you off, then go for it. But I'll take a well trained and practiced musician any day of the week.



OK, not that I want to get dragged into childish, sophomoric chicken-and-egg arguments, but I could just as easily say that there needed to be a desire in the musician to be hear something. And his first instinct after he created his music? Run and get someone to hear it.

But that is all pointless. Anyone who has done any ethnomusicological work on stone age cultures knows that for them music is a communal event. They idea of a musician creating art for himself would be a strange concept to them. In those cultures songs usually served a function - party song, worship song, work song, mnemonic songs, story songs, etc. The idea of a solitary musician on a lonely hill creating for the sake of beauty would be ridiculous to them.

But if that's what music is for you, go for it. I listen to enjoy and I practice to get better at expressing myself to others. All that New-Age-touchy-feely-become-one-with-the-comsic-muffin stuff about singing for joy for myself? - I ain't got no use for it. I suspect my wife would have me locked up if I started to do that.

Peace,
Kevin

you hate singing, or you hate to sing? i took your statement to mean the latter. well, that's fine. not everyone sings particularly well. i do. maybe you don't. thats OK.

it is a shame that you can't enjoy the pure art of creating music on your instrument - as a personal pleasure. its sounds as if you are a stressed out pro. so i would say, don't lose your taste for experiencing pure musical joy through the simple act of playing an instrument the way you want to play it.

i agree with you about most kids. there are exceptions however.

[musicalbodger]

No, I hate singing.



Not really. If I am, then it is an attempt to connect with myself. But most of the time, that I play alone, it is to prepare to play in front of others.






I guess the bill to legalize "off-hand (slightly) humorous remarks" didn't pass either. The point was that I "needed" it to discuss sophomoric, pseudo-philosophical questions like "Is it music if no one listens? Does the 'self' count as a listener? Is it an 'expression' if it does not communicate to others, to whom is it 'expressing'?" But thanks for taking the comment out of context and taking it way too seriously. The point was that those questions are silly. And from the context of my statement it should have been very inferrable that I don't use illegal drugs.




To me (and apparently others) it has a lot to do with music. Knowledge helps me appreciate and to create musical expression. That is what's important to me.




Really? Where are you hearing this? I teach music to kids so I hear children playing music all the time. I'm proud of them for their hard work and am sometimes impressed with their progress, but (unless they've been training since an early age) I've never heard one that I would describe as "magical to listen to." I suppose if I were the parent it would be. I wonder why they don't sell CDs of untrained children playing music? Why are they not booking concert halls? Oh yeah, that's right, because it's crap.

If that's what gets you off, then go for it. But I'll take a well trained and practiced musician any day of the week.



OK, not that I want to get dragged into childish, sophomoric chicken-and-egg arguments, but I could just as easily say that there needed to be a desire in the musician to be hear something. And his first instinct after he created his music? Run and get someone to hear it.

But that is all pointless. Anyone who has done any ethnomusicological work on stone age cultures knows that for them music is a communal event. They idea of a musician creating art for himself would be a strange concept to them. In those cultures songs usually served a function - party song, worship song, work song, mnemonic songs, story songs, etc. The idea of a solitary musician on a lonely hill creating for the sake of beauty would be ridiculous to them.

But if that's what music is for you, go for it. I listen to enjoy and I practice to get better at expressing myself to others. All that New-Age-touchy-feely-become-one-with-the-comsic-muffin stuff about singing for joy for myself? - I ain't got no use for it. I suspect my wife would have me locked up if I started to do that.

Peace,
Kevin

If you can't, or won't, read what I actually wrote, I can't be bothered following this through. I'm not going to go 0on repeating myself.

It seems JohnW has it about right, you sound like a stressed out teacher who's lost sight of the joy of innocence and the joy of music.
Bye
Bodge

[ksjazzguitar]

If you can't, or won't, read what I actually wrote, I can't be bothered following this through. I'm not going to go 0on repeating myself.

It seems JohnW has it about right, you sound like a stressed out teacher who's lost sight of the joy of innocence and the joy of music.
Bye
Bodge

I read every word that you read and responded line by line - I just thought you were wrong. I see you didn't do me the same courtesy. (What will it take to get you quys to get some quote discipline? Really, what is the point of quoting the entire post at the beginning?)

I love teaching children, it's one of my great joys. I just don't think that what comes out of them is "magical" - if I thought that, then I would stop teaching them so I don't pollute them. Seriously, if it's so "magical," where are all the CDs of untrained children playing music? There are none because no one wants to hear it except for their relatives and pie-eyed moonies.

I also have the joy and privilege of teaching chess to children. I love doing it. I love seeing the excitement on their eyes when they first do a discovered check to win the enemy's queen. But I don't delude myself into thinking that their moves are "magical." Their play is awkward, short-sighted, and aspires to mediocrity. Of course, they're just kids and they should be proud of the rudimentary play that they can do. But it's not "magical." It's the same for music.

I find different joys than you. I didn't tell you not to enjoy music your way. But your insistence that you are right bothers me. Unqualified definitive statement like, "other people listening has nothing to do with it" are ridiculous. And a statement like "performing music for others to listen to is a modern development, i.e. in the past few thousand years" is utterly ridiculous in terms of anthropology and ethnomusicology - n fact the opposite is true. Just plain ridiculous. But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of good wishy-washy pseudo-philosophical argument?

...it is a shame that you can't enjoy the pure art of creating music on your instrument - as a personal pleasure.

I do. I just like it better when I'm using it to express my humanity to someone else. I enjoy cooking for myself too, but like it better when I'm cooking for someone else too. I enjoy a good joke, but I prefer to share it with someone else. I like masturbation too, but prefer sex with my wife.

Does all this make me flawed as a human being because I can't enjoy the "pure" joy of art just for myself? No, it just means I prioritize sharing my joy with other people over amusing myself. I guess I'm less of an introvert than you guys. To me, most of the joy of creativity is sharing it with others.

its sounds as if you are a stressed out pro.
...

No, I'm about the most laid-back guy you could meet. It just raises my hackles when pseudo-philosophical moronic sophomorisms start masquerading as "deep thought." Intellectualism is my temple and some of you guys are defecating on the altar.

But I guess I'll have to ignore this thread. Too much pseudo-philosophical onanism - I live on planet Earth.

Enjoy your wishy-washy pseudo-philosophical contrary-to-the-facts arguments - life's too short.

Peace,
Kevin

[Gramps]

There is no single point to music and having a working knowledge of how music works will likely enhance your appreciation of it. (I don't know if appreciation is the point of music. Too simple.)

I spent 17 years supporting myself, playing dance music for people who really liked it but I was just punching the clock and getting paid. (Granted, playing music I didn't like was still not too bad a job.) Now I don't have to worry about a music derived pay check and can play anything I want. So the point of playing music for me changed from, "I have to bring home a pay check" to "What interests me now? I think I'll learn that next". Both valid points, just coming from different perspectives.

[musicalbodger]

OK, one last try.

I don't appreciate being insulted, Kevin. Although, to be honest, I really don't care. And your comments regarding the way people quote others on this thread just shows how you are unable to accept individuality in a JAZZ forum. So, how about taking a step back and looking at this question, "Does analising miss the point of music?" from a different perspective?

Let's broaden the topic and let's say, "Does analising miss the point of art?"

Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. Why did he paint? For the audience? He may have desired an audience, but he painted because he had to. Why?

Giacometti escaped from Austria during (or just prior to) the second world war with all his sculptures in matchboxes. He had never been able to sell any of his sculptures, in fact he sold his first sculpture when he was in his late 50s. So why did he make them? For the non existent audience?

I would suggest that both these artists created their works because they had to express their view of the human condition regardless of the fact that no one was listening.

Analysis, theory, the reasons why, come after. Usually expressed by those who teach. Those who create, have to create, because the story has to be told, the feeling expressed, the pain expunged. No audience, listener, viewer is necessary for the creation of art.

[fumblefingers]

Kevin. Good gaaawd man!

1. Please take yourself a little less seriously, we sure as heck do.
2. Never even think about talking about having sex with your wife to others, much less internet strangers. It's about as low class as a man can get. Sorry to say.
3. Please stop it with the "my philosophical argumentation wang is bigger than yours". No one is impressed with that... shtuff... you are serving up.
4. Look up the word "concise".
5. I am afraid that I must repeat myself, sir. You are working waaaay too friggin' hard at this, and really need to throttle back.

[ksjazzguitar]

And your comments regarding the way people quote others on this thread just shows how you are unable to accept individuality in a JAZZ forum.

Actually in many of the forums to which I've belonged, quoting the entire post is something that's frowned upon. It wastes bandwidth, takes up too much space on the page, decreases readability, and really serves no function. And learning to properly quote is easy. I know of at least one person that got temporarily banned from a forum for it. I know that this is not a heavily moderated forum, but I personally like the policy. I have no problem with "individuality," I just don't like bad manners.

...Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. Why did he paint? For the audience? He may have desired an audience, but he painted because he had to. Why?

So many problems here, I'll just focus on one paragraph before giving up. First of all, he did sell one painting. Secondly, you equate selling with sharing art. Who said the only way to share art was for money to change hands? Van Gough put on exhibits in Paris. He went to great lengths for his work to be seen. He didn't paint for himself and hide it in the attic - he wanted others to see his work. Yes, he clearly painted for an audience otherwise he would not have gone to the difficulty and expense to get it out there. To sum up, "audience" is not the same thing as money changing hands.

One other problem with your example. You are using one person to extrapolate about everyone else (the fallacy of hasty generalization or secundum quid.) Hyperbole aside, I am not saying that there are no artists who create solely for their own enjoyment. I'm sure there are a few that create and then make absolutely no effort to share. (But of course, we wouldn't know who they are.) I'm saying that for many of us, the joy of sharing our creativity is an important part of the process. Even if your Van Gough statement were true, it would be irrelevant to disproving my thesis. The only way you could do that would be to survey every artist on the planet and have them say, "No, I don't care if anyone sees/hears it."

The third problem is that Van Gough was crazy.

If you want to create just for yourself, GO AHEAD! I'M NOT STOPPING YOU! I think it's egocentric and solipsistic, but who cares. Go for it. I just think that you'll find (regardless of your long list of non sequitors, circular logic, historical inaccuracies, a priori assumptions, et al.) that most of us like to share our art with others and that for many of us is the main point. I haven't actually done a survey of all the musicians in the world, but my experience is that most of them like playing for people, the more the better. The number of knuckle heads willing to play gigs for free speaks to that.

If it is your finding that all musicians you know prefer to play when no one is listening, then I think you need to get out more.

But this has gotten silly and I get annoyed arguing with people for whom the basic rules of dialectic are seemingly a mystery - I come on here to learn and relax, not to teach remedial epistemology. I have doctoral applications coming due so I don't have time for this silly stuff.

Go and peace. Play for yourself. I'll play for people. But this is a silly discussion and a waste of my time, so you can have the last word if you want - I'm done with it.

Peace,
Kevin

[musicalbodger]

Go and peace. Play for yourself. I'll play for people. But this is a silly discussion and a waste of my time, so you can have the last word if you want - I'm done with it.

Peace,
Kevin

At last! Your pedantry and arrogance were becoming a bit too much. And you still miss the point of this thread.

ps For someone who claims to be so laid back, you really do shout a lot.

[franco6719]

Uh-oh. One of those philosophical attack threads. This could be entertaining. I will make note of it.

[musicalbodger]

Uh-oh. One of those philosophical attack threads. This could be entertaining. I will make note of it.

[JohnW400]

I try not to analyze any tune unless I'm working on it. To me that just takes the magic out of it.

It's almost like sitting down to a delicious meal and and trying to figure out what ingredients the chef used to make it while your eating it.

As far as playing for oneself, since about 2005 I stopped gigging regularly due to an illness in the family. Since then I have done a total of 5 gigs. (although things have gotten better so I may start looking for work again)

I have a guitar in my hands 18-20 hours a week spread out over 6 to 7 days. On three of those days I only play pieces or tunes. No drills, scales or what have you. Nobody is listening to me and I don't care. (Although I have wished that I recorded some stuff)

[oilywrag]

Having joined this thread late,but as they say better late than never.Too answer the OP.Yes it does miss the point of music,or come to think about it any art form.Music is played,so you can listen to it,not pull it to pieces note by note.Yes analysis can help understand what is going on but it doesn't make it sound any better or worse.
I take the point that in the case of jazz the untrained ear can't spot some of jazzs little nuances, but does that matter?? I dont think anybody writes a song with the intention of having the said song analysed to death.If it wasn't for theory then there wouldn't be a lot left to talk about.
Before I repeat myself I would finish with this quote " The more complex something is seen to be the more complex it will become "Music is to be played, listened to, and enjoyed.Working out why can come later .
Just my £00.02p worth

Tom

[mr. beaumont]

There's no reason to throw my hat in the ring again...but...oh well...

Music is a right brain AND left brain activity. Whole brain. Room for expression and emotion as well as Analysis. I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing with so many people.

Jazz, as an artform, is quite advanced. There's going to need to be some analysis if one is to progress. If we must liken one artform to another--if all of music is visual art--then jazz is a process like photography. Sure you could just point and click, but there's a lot of techniques you could learn about the process that might make you even better--and allow you to express things you couldn't do without the learning/analyzing.

To a certain extent, I don't trust people who don't go back and analyze their Art. It's either arrogance saying "I know all I need to know" or fear of seeing one's shortcomings. Both do nothing to advance Art.

[musicalbodger]

Mr B, don't get me wrong. If you look back at my previous posts, BK (before Kevin), you'll see that I've already articulated the fact that analysis is essential if one is to progress and develop. Unfortunately this thread is now starting a second cycle around the same ground.

Maybe everyone should go back to the beginning and read the first page and a half, it was all said there with much less verbosity and no shouting.

[JohnRoss]

To a certain extent, I don't trust people who don't go back and analyze their Art.

My own 'art' doesn't come with a capital letter, but I do, sometimes, analyse. But it isn't the point, it's a means, a tool.

(This is like the design forums I frequent, where the kids all think design is about Photoshop and QuarkXpress. It isn't, they are just means to an end, tools. I only mention it because design is about communicating much more specific messages than jazz, so it's easier to identify a good or bad design than good or bad jazz - it's the one that succeeds or fails in getting the message across. As has been said, music has no single identifiable message, but you know when it gets to you, connects. Analysis doesn't help that connection, that isn't its job.)

[mr. beaumont]

My own 'art' doesn't come with a capital letter, but I do, sometimes, analyse. But it isn't the point, it's a means, a tool.

I'm not sure I agree with "analysis" as being a tool. Your example of design students with Quark and Photoshop most definitely is "tool-based," much like the guitar players who get hung up on equipment...(I know I've been guilty of that one)

I think of analysis as continuing professional development.

And bodge, I wasn't just addressing you, sorry if it came off that way.

As for sharing/self-enjoyment, I actually get different kinds of enjoyment from playing at home for myself/dog versus playing out. I like both feelings, so I do and enjoy both. I think there's an artistic drive to be heard or seen though--I can think of very few artists who literally created in a vacuum, Darger-style. My guess is the folks who create at home purely for their own enjoyment either haven't been bitten by the "play out" bug, or that ship has sailed for them.

Playing out doesn't just mean gigging to me either--just getting together with a few like minds and making music together is part of the same idea--although it might lack the "rush" of performing for an audience, it's certainly a different feeling to hear others playing off/reacting to what you're putting out there...

[JohnRoss]

I'm not sure I agree with "analysis" as being a tool... I think of analysis as continuing professional development.

Well, continuing professional development isn't 'the point' of music, either. That's a musician-centric world view.

However you look at it, 'analysis' is the opposite of 'synthesis.' Analysis is breaking something down into its components in order to understand it, that's why it's a tool, a technique for achieving something. And as soon as you do it, the subject of your analysis ceases to be whatever it was, and is reduced to mere constituents. If you take a steak, say, and subject it to analysis, you end up with proteins or amino acids and fats, lots of things, none of which is meat. The same happens when you analyse music. You may have a good reason to do this, to learn how to synthesise music better yourself, or for the intellectual pleasure of identifying the components, whatever, but that isn't 'the point.' In music as in food, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Mist the point of music?! I'm missing the point of this thread

[Solo Flight]

Very interesting discussion, albeit with all the shouting, etc. For anyone really interested in this stuff, I would again strongly recommend the book “This is Your Brain on Music” by Daniel J. Levitin. He discusses not only how the brain reacts to music but why we may have evolved to do so in the first place. There are competing theories but he argues that the ability to make and appreciate music was a precursor to our ability to create and use language. He also argues that music may have also played a part in humans’ ability to attract the best possible mate, something necessary for propagation of the species. On that subject, he includes this wonderful quote by Robert Plant, talking about his touring with Led Zeppelin in the 70’s: “I was on my way to love. Always. Whatever road I took, the car was heading for one of the greatest sexual encounters I’ve ever had.” Of course, some argue that music has no evolutionary purpose at all.

As for myself and the original topic, my appreciation of jazz has only increased with what limited knowledge of theory I’ve picked up on my own. When I took a film class in college (many years ago), I wondered if being aware of the technical aspects of filmmaking and the techniques directors use (e.g. foreshadowing, selection of shots, etc.) would ruin the moviegoing experience for me. Quite the opposite happened. I appreciate movies on several levels now. (Of course, being aware of foreshadowing means I can more easily predict those early clues when they appear – e.g. any appearance early on in a movie of a pneumatic nailgun sets off a red flag for me.) But with music and jazz in particular, I know I can appreciate performances and solos on a much deeper level than someone with a relatively untrained ear. The knowledge of why something sounds as good as it does, doesn’t ruin it for me.

[musicalbodger]

e.g. any appearance early on in a movie of a pneumatic nailgun sets off a red flag for me.

I never spotted that one in the Wizard of Oz — took me completely by surprise

[ksjazzguitar]

At last! Your pedantry and arrogance were becoming a bit too much. And you still miss the point of this thread.

ps For someone who claims to be so laid back, you really do shout a lot.

If my emphasis offended you, I apologize. But you seemed to be ignoring key points in my argument so I thought some emphasis would be good.

But I do get heated when people tell lies (you fabricated points about history and anthropology) and use bad logic to make their point (several non sequitors, some hasty generalizations, several unwarrented a priori assumption, and a few false equivalencies). I really don't mind people disagreeing with me (I actually enjoy it because that means that I was thinking wrongly but now I've learned something new), but when you lie and cheat to build your argument, then that is a slap in the face to me.

Maybe you never learned not to fabricate factoids (primitive man created music primarily for himself, etc.) or to make hasty generalizations (if Van Gough did it this way, that represents every artist everywhere, etc.) or false equivalencies (it's only playing for an audience if money is changing hands, etc.). And to make matters worse, like someone defending a bad argument, you completely ignored the salient points I made against your points and just came up with more of the same. (A good debater always discusses the points against him - unless he can't because it would hurt his argument.) I went through your argument point by point and you just ignored everything I had to say - I was having a debate and you were trying to give a speech. Maybe you never learned that.

The expectation of truthfulness and valid logic, and the absence of fabrications and illogical meant to deceive - that is not just pendantry, it is intellectual integrity. If demanding truth and logic is "pendantry," then I will wear it as a badge of honor.

I don't think less of you because you disagree with me. I think less of you because you couldn't defend that argument without making things up and using logical fallacies.

For the record, I will always think less of people who can't construct an argument fairly and honestly. I don't think less of someone because they don't know something. And true, we all make mistakes here and there. But when your argument is almost entirely built on them and you refuse to let them go, then there is a problem. I will always resent that.

The sad thing is that we are becoming a culture of lawyers instead of intellectuals. Intellectuals worry about getting to the truth and there are certain "rules" about how debate is handled. Finding that truth is a victory on all sides. (I know many of you may not of done a lot of scholarly debate, but most of them are common sense.) Unfortunately, we're becoming a culture of lawyers - they don't care about the truth, they just want to win the argument at any cost. Any distortion, any fabrication, any twist of logic that they can get away with is fair game. (Just listen to what's been happening to our political media in this country, on both sides - perhaps where you learned your rhetorical technique.) It makes me sad. There's no respect for the intellectual process anymore - just sensationalism.

Am I arrogant? If having pride in having studied things like rhetoric, epistemology, history, musicology, ethnomusicology - if that is arrogance, then I guess you are right. But I still say it's better than pretending to. I gues you either get it or you don't. I am an intellectual I don't mean that as a reflection of my intelligence, but as an indication of the process of how I collect, understand, and evaluate information. Other epistemolgies are of no interest to me.

Peace,
Kevin

[musicalbodger]

You really do need to stop playing teacher, Kevin. If you don't like the low level of discussion on this forum (the correct plural is fora, by the way — it comes from Latin) you are welcome to go back to those which, in your opinion, are better moderated. It would save an awful lot of bandwidth here.

And don't accuse me of lying and cheating. Very cheap and childish. Also a very grave offense, very cowardly and very easy to do from a distance. You dig yourself deeper with every post you make.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

(the correct plural is fora, by the way — it comes from Latin)

Not to sashay into the middle of your donnybrook, both plurals of forum are correct (it's now a word in English, eh), but "the English plural forums is preferred to the Latin plural fora in normal English usage."