We are getting too sensitive here. Thats precisely making people feel scared too post.
Listened to something. If it pleases your ears enjoy. Share what you liked. If somebody disagrees, try understanding why? If you don't agree leave them in peace. why should we have a firewall, and filter words like 'mediocre', 'Average', 'bad'? Anyways, getting sensitive and upset about something is also a personal choice. Just that my choice happens to be different. --- In [email protected], "ravi" <ravis...@...> wrote: > > I dont think there can be anything painful than a fan himself calls AR's work > as mediocre. If a fan can use such a term its no surprise that those who > aren't AR fans or those who don't like him say anything negative about AR. > > > --- In [email protected], Gayathri Chandrakasan <gayathri_ck17@> > wrote: > > > > When liking a music depends on one's taste and interest, who are we to > > judge what is mediocre and what is not? > > > > > > --- On Sun, 8/29/10, kishore parayath <kishore.parayath@> wrote: > > > > From: kishore parayath <kishore.parayath@> > > Subject: Re: [arr] I truly do not believe most people endorse the following > > statement: > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Sunday, August 29, 2010, 9:25 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well... Where did this image come from?? His current image is only > > because of the terrific pathbreaking works of his past. It did not suddenly > > come up, one fine morning. It is not justice to say that Rahman's image > > made ppl like his works. > > > > Infact, the present situation is similar to that. Due to Rahman's > > pathbreaking accomplishments of the past, today, there are people > > to praise any mediocre or below average work from him (Eg: Ghajini), and > > bash other sincere Rahmaniacs who dislike the same. > > > >  > > Anyway, what ARR today, is ONLY because of his hardwork and pathbreaking > > accomplishments. > > > > > >  > > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:03 AM, AJ <purevibz@> wrote: > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > This statement is coming from that "Weaka Weaka" article, which to me > > sounded extremely biased. > > > > "Avid music buffs too felt that it was Rahman's image that made people like > > whatever he composed rather than the music." > > > > > > A minority may think this, but I truly do not think the majority of true > > music lovers out there think this is true. Yes, Rahman has an image and a > > brand name, but people can discern quality too and are not that dumb to > > just go by someone's name when it comes to appreciating good music. Because > > Rahman's music is often so original and unconventional, it does take time > > for the music to sink in, th > > > > > > This is scientifically proven in psychology that when a complex, > > unfamiliar, and unknown stimulus is encountered, the mind has to > > accommodate (change) rather than assimilate (easily absorb)...which is why > > repeated exposure is necessary for Rahman's music, which is often complex, > > unfamiliar, and unknown due to the high originality and innovativeness > > factors. > > > > > > Brand Rahman exists, yes, but Quality Rahman is still there and still > > strong according to most. How do I know? A in my family , who have been > > skeptical of Rahman's music in the past, are head over heels with Raavan's > > music. They are not the type to just like something just because it has > > Rahman attached to it. They are critical music lovers who are skeptical of > > today's music. If they like a Rahman album or song and which validates my > > opinion (my opinion is not dependent on anyone's by the way), I know Rahman > > has scored big time. > > >
