Mid-Week Poll of your listening thread behavior

[Opus106]

Perhaps as an experiment it would be interesting to see if there is interest in a thread that takes more time with each post and provides more listening detail. That could be very interesting, though it would need to differentiate itself drom the current listening thread.

This was the stated intention of The Classical Chat thread before it became the genreal, not-necessarily-listening Classical Twitter thread. Take a look at Elgarian's early posts, for instance.

It really doesn't matter where one posts it, as long as the person is willing to write something worth reading. That's why I take special interest in Todd's "corner" and Harry's posts, for instance.

I know for myself, I started adding a text description of everything I listen to in my posts (piece/composer/main participants). This is not because I knew others might be reading without pictures, but rather, as I went back and looked at old posts, many pictures were removed or no longer available. THus, the only way to know which picture had been posted was if it was also written in text. So I now make this a habit just in case the pictures get deleted/moved/etc. This way the record is still there. But now knowing that others don't look at pictures, I will try to make sure I do it in other threads as well.

That's sort of why I use text -- it's easier to search. I don't put up album covers because I don't want to be bothered by the extra work.

[Sergeant Rock]

Does anyone actually read and follow that thread?

I do. In fact, it's usually one of the first things I do each morning: eat breakfast at the computer, go back to the last listening post I read the day before and catch up. But you know I'm retired; I have nothing better to do 

P.S. the problem with cover shots is that I browse with images turned off. If posters can't be bothered to type the name of what they're listening to (which I think would be easier than hunting down the Amazon link), I usually can't be bothered clicking "Show picture".

I like pictures (perhaps I have the mental age of a three-year-old  )  But I think everyone should type in the work, composer and performing forces too for a couple of reasons: pictures can disappear, temporarily, sometimes permanently, for one reason or another. And the search function doesn't work for pictures.

Sarge

[DavidW]

It could be regarded as the more successful version of the "The Classical Chat Thread" you yourself once started...

Actually if you remember the classical chat thread was started as a sanctuary from those that didn't like the torrent that is the listening thread, and was only meant to be an appendage to the main thread.  The way that you wrote that line I've quoted seriously suggests that you have absolutely no handle on the chronology of the forum that you claim to moderate! *teasing*

Parade of images? I personally like it better that the continuous parade of silly polls (this one not included)! 0:)

Q

It's that very parade of images that buries interesting, detailed posts that you and Antoine make (among a few others).  That was the purpose of the chat thread, to make sure those kind of interesting posts weren't immediately lost.  It was sad when most chose not to use it, sadder when it became just a place for Jens to post blog updates, saddest when now the people who can benefit most from it laugh at me for even trying.

[DavidW]

BTW I follow the purchases thread religiously because it covers everything the listening thread but more concisely.  The only people who buy more than they listen are box set people and Harry and MI.  Most people post less in the purchases thread than the listening and it's very easy to follow.

[Karl Henning]

The parade of images (in my view) has a purpose to serve, too. But I am all for Davey's brilliantly conceived Classical Chat thread, also.  (And even the value I find in the parade does not prevent me from the occasional rapid scroll . . . underscoring the value of the Cl Ch thread . . . .)

[DavidW]

The image parade would work better if it was a scroll on the bottom of the screen.  I mean still have the thread but feedify it if you know what I mean.  A project for Navneeth!

[Opus106]

The only people who buy more than they listen are box set people

I'm one of the box-set people, but in my case it's a question of economics and time, and not "Hey! Look what I bought." and soon followed by "Hey, look the thing I bought plopped in today".

[DavidW]

I'm one of the box-set people, but in my case it's a question of economics and time, and not "Hey! Look what I bought." and soon followed by "Hey, look the thing I bought plopped in today".

I'm one of those box set people too.

Anyway I wanted to say on a serious note though that no matter what the thread people should always strive to appropriately caption their pics.  It's so easy to not see the pic and thus have no context for the post on any thread because

(a) you have images turned off
(b) filter at work blocks the image (it happens alot they are very aggressive)
(c) ad blocking filter blocks the image
(d) the original site doesn't allow hotlinking

It is frustrating when someone says something uselessly banal like "totally awesome!" and you have no idea what they're talking about.  Even worse when someone replies "yeah that is the best isn't it!" and you're still in the dark.  It could be the greatest Mahler album ever, a cute kitten motivational poster or the holocaust and what would you know?

The caption should serve to replace the pic incase the pic can't be seen.  Such as "van Halen tribute concert of Dittersdorf" is much more descriptive than the above.

[mc ukrneal]

I think you may be over-personalising this.  I'm not aware than anyone has a negative view of your posting style, quite the contrary if anything.

However I think it also a mistake to assume that picture posts are in all cases inherently less interesting than those with comment attached.  It depends on the comment.  I often skip over comments in order to concentrate on the pictures - partly, of course, because I am incredibly superficial - but also because a piece of boilerplate informing me that the poster likes what he is hearing doesn't actually communicate a whole lot extra to me.  Whereas the very selection of images that another poster has chosen to post can tweak my interest.

I don't really like it so much when someone just posts an image and that is it. My first thought is always, "And?" One wants to know something more.

[mc ukrneal]

Fine.  If that is the general view then I am more than happy to stop.

No one said you have to stop!!  Or should I call your bluff?   

[nesf]

I'm one of those box set people too.

Anyway I wanted to say on a serious note though that no matter what the thread people should always strive to appropriately caption their pics.  It's so easy to not see the pic and thus have no context for the post on any thread because

(a) you have images turned off
(b) filter at work blocks the image (it happens alot they are very aggressive)
(c) ad blocking filter blocks the image
(d) the original site doesn't allow hotlinking

It is frustrating when someone says something uselessly banal like "totally awesome!" and you have no idea what they're talking about.  Even worse when someone replies "yeah that is the best isn't it!" and you're still in the dark.  It could be the greatest Mahler album ever, a cute kitten motivational poster or the holocaust and what would you know?

The caption should serve to replace the pic incase the pic can't be seen.  Such as "van Halen tribute concert of Dittersdorf" is much more descriptive than the above.

Good argument, I'm convinced to put more effort in but I warn you anything I have to say about a recording will most likely be banal and not very interesting.

[mc ukrneal]

And in the remaining 1% of cases, anything I might say would be so commonplace and hackneyed that you would wish to tear out your own eyeballs in sheer frustration at reading such drivel.  People who have had the experience have told me exactly that.

As evidenced by your posts here, I simply don't believe it! You are asking the wrong the people!

Though I must admit, I am not quite sure why you have put a vacuum cleaner as your avatar. That one has me stumped. 

[Mirror Image]

I voted: I listen for a while (but not to the end) and then post, but to be honest, it doesn't always end up being this way. Sometimes I listen to a whole work before making a post. Whereas sometimes, I'll post what I'm going to listen to before I start listening. The option I voted for, though, is what probably occurs the most in my own listening.

P.S. Yes, Harry is the king of the "What are you listening to now?" thread.

[DavidW]

I think you may be over-personalising this. 

No, I didn't personalize it until Que mocked my chat thread.  Before that it wasn't personal at all.

[DavidW]

I don't really like it so much when someone just posts an image and that is it. My first thought is always, "And?" One wants to know something more.

I just want it to be captioned in case I can't see the image.  But that's not specific to any thread.  At work there are alot of pics that I just can't say because it's blocked or the hotlinking issue.

Also a few times posters will post inappropriate for work images like a scantily clad woman and I hate that because you never have any clue that was going to happen and then you have to page down or close the thread as fast as possible.

[eyeresist]

Good argument, I'm convinced to put more effort in but I warn you anything I have to say about a recording will most likely be banal and not very interesting.

No, you don't necessarily have to verbalise a critical reaction, just use your words to say what you're listening to.

EDIT: DW already said this.

[mahler10th]

And in the remaining 1% of cases, anything I might say would be so commonplace and hackneyed that you would wish to tear out your own eyeballs in sheer frustration at reading such drivel.  People who have had the experience have told me exactly that.

Yes.  It is always a challenge to come up with something that doesn't read like everything else.  It is a creative challenge.  That is why I sometimes but seldom introduce the laws of physics, cosmological and scientific fundamentals and fantasies when trying to describe a piece of music, because I too get sick to death of reading opinions and descriptive words which even from different people end up sounding like a drunk person going through the same old guff as the last time they were drunk.  The challenge is to say what the music does for me, even if I am hopelessly off the mainstream ball, which obviously I often am. 
But yes, I admit to being one of those drivel writers too much of the time, and it is of great pain to me.  For that reason, I will try to describe what I'm listening to in a completely creative way, even if I think it is not what others hear from the piece.  It is a lack of confidence in my own interpretative ability that stops me, and it shouldn't.  Whilst being of no technical use to the real composers and musically savvy on this forum, I can and will write more entertaining posts re - what I'm listening to.  It will be more fun to do so anyway, so I can skip the turgid repetitiveness that for some reason I expect people to hear.  I will also use text references with the cover pics to what is being listened to, as I did not foresee the frustrations some other members experience with pics only.  I understand them completely.
Right.  That is the end of my wholly selfish rant.  Time to climb some mountains and meet mad men in the hills of Sweden with Rangstrom...