Was the rock song thread deleted?

May 11, 2006 12:12 AM

The "most perfect rock song" thread has been deleted, no? I understand the reasons behind this; it was quite chatty with no real question. However, I'd glanced at it while at work and was looking forward to writing down the reccomendations when I got home. Does anyone have any sort of a cached version of this page?

Is this a kosher use of MeTa? If not, do forgive me, and feel free to delete. Ta!
posted by rossination to MetaFilter-Related at 12:12 AM (57 comments total)

Rock on.
posted by TimeFactor at 12:31 AM on May 11, 2006

Gee, thanks. Did I miss that, or did you just do some secret MeFi voodoo to invoke it?
posted by rossination at 12:41 AM on May 11, 2006

Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish and he'll waste all his time fishing. Eventually he'll succumb to mercury poisoning from eating too much fish and then his heirs will sue you.
posted by TimeFactor at 12:50 AM on May 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Deleted posts leave gaps in the post number sequence (pending anon questions can as well). I think there are at least a couple of Metafilter-specific Firefox/Greasemonkey gizmos that'll point out the gaps.
posted by TimeFactor at 1:01 AM on May 11, 2006

Alternatively, if you use a RSS reader that keeps a store of entries it will still exist there.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:06 AM on May 11, 2006

alternatively, you can bookmark the threads you like and return to the page at any time, since they are not deleted - only excluded from the front page. no voodoo involved.
posted by quonsar at 4:26 AM on May 11, 2006

Gaps in the sequence? Greasemonkey gizmo?

Vodoo!

Sounds like the work of an intelligent designer to me.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 4:44 AM on May 11, 2006

Stay away from the voodoo, mon.
posted by cortex at 6:22 AM on May 11, 2006

I use a bookmarklet to see a list of deleted threads. I don't know where it came from, but I added it to the Wiki (because I couldn't figure out how to post it here without mangling).
posted by smackfu at 7:00 AM on May 11, 2006

Though I also agree with the reasoning based on the FAQ, was sad to see the thread to go. Lots of interesting musical suggestions for me to look up!
posted by jmd82 at 7:09 AM on May 11, 2006

I think Justinian's second answer was the best answer.
posted by caddis at 7:16 AM on May 11, 2006

Pixies' "Planet of Sound" is pretty fucking awesome, but it's older than 10 years. Interpol's "Obstacle 1" is great too (dual guitars.) But really, last ten years, nothing rocks like motherfucking "One Armed Scissor" by At the Drive In.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 7:19 AM on May 11, 2006

Another crappy deletion.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:23 AM on May 11, 2006

I am listening to a live version of Radio Free Europe that I obtained thanks to this post, and it is rocking me quite hard, so I vote for it. R.E.M. has broken my heart so much in the last decade that I forget why I used to love them. Also, me voting for this song is further support for this great observation.
posted by ND¢ at 7:29 AM on May 11, 2006

Another crappy deletion.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:23 AM PST on May 11

Form counts. Such chat questions should be written in the form: "I am interested in finding the most perfect rock/metal/alternative song - preferably recorded in the last 10 years - that ... is (near) flawless in every respect (ie: harmony, lyrics, vocals, musical execution etc) and totally amps you up every time you listen to it." It's still chatty, yet focused toward a goal. Of course you could improve the format by claiming that you are building the ultimate mix tape etc. (I would have left the thread if it were up to me, but I can understand the reasons for deletion as well.)
posted by caddis at 7:36 AM on May 11, 2006

Someone suggested a song by Jet. The thread should've deleted itself at that point.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:37 AM on May 11, 2006

And hardly anyone was answering the question as asked anyway. It was more like "Here's 10 songs I like!"
posted by ludwig_van at 7:38 AM on May 11, 2006

By the way my answer still stands, Great Balls of Fire by Jerry Lee Lewis. The whole genre just went downhill from there.
posted by caddis at 7:41 AM on May 11, 2006

What caddis said.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:43 AM on May 11, 2006

Bet it was the "I might as well start first" that pushed it over the top. We've been over this many times before, and jessamyn explained it very clearly last time:

often the person asking the question seems to want to give their own answer before getting the answers of others [the "I'll go first" thing] which seems to indicate that it's just a thread for talking. There's nothing wrong with chatty threads in any absolute sense, it's just not what Ask MetaFilter is for. If you can authoritatively answer your own question, it's probably not right for AskMe.

monju_bosatsu, you're just wrong on this one.
posted by mediareport at 7:44 AM on May 11, 2006

Urm, the first thing, not the Jerry Lee Lewis thing. I would have suggest Neutral Milk Hotel's Holland, 1945 or Ghost, myself.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:48 AM on May 11, 2006

monju_bosatsu, you're just wrong on this one.

No, I'm not. It's precisely this form-over-substance approach to deletion of this kind of question that leads to complaints about moderation. If tweaking the wording slightly without changing the substance or function of the question avoids deletion, then it's silly to delete it for failing to utter the talismanic phrases.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:01 AM on May 11, 2006

One just needs to hire a good attorney to draft the proper pleading, no?
posted by caddis at 8:04 AM on May 11, 2006

"If you can authoritatively answer your own question, don't post it to AskMe" is a far cry from demanding the utterance of the proper talismanic phrases.
posted by mediareport at 8:27 AM on May 11, 2006

good point
posted by caddis at 8:33 AM on May 11, 2006

No, I'm not.

Yes, you are. They added a FAQ just to head off this kind of inane question. And as ludvig_van said, "hardly anyone was answering the question as asked anyway. It was more like 'Here's 10 songs I like!'" I'm really sick of those what-are-your-favorite-songs threads and wish they'd delete more of them.
posted by languagehat at 8:33 AM on May 11, 2006

So, what's everyone's favourite music discussion board where they can ask such questions as what's everyone's favourite etc.?
posted by funambulist at 8:44 AM on May 11, 2006

I guess it's just a fundamental difference in how we view AskMe. The what-is-your-favorite-x-in-genre-y threads are some of my favorite, and given the level of participation and the repeated questions about their deletion here in MeTa, I'm apparently not the only one. If Matt and Jess really don't want to have the favorite-x threads in AskMe, they are obviously the ones with the power to exclude them, but I think it would be a loss for the community.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:46 AM on May 11, 2006

They added a FAQ just to head off this kind of inane question.

I will point out, though, the the only "inane" threads that get deleted are the ones where the questioner isn't sufficiently clever in wording the question so as to avoid deletion. It has nothing to do with the subject matter of the request, no matter how inane.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:47 AM on May 11, 2006

"I will point out, though, the the only "inane" threads that get deleted are the ones where the questioner isn't sufficiently clever in wording the question so as to avoid deletion. It has nothing to do with the subject matter of the request, no matter how inane."

Yes, and? How is that an unfair burden? How does it not at least partially address the problem that there are too many chatty threads in AskMe? Things that you like are not necessarily things that should stay. Further, for your listing needs, have you tried Metachat or ilx.wh3rd.net?
posted by klangklangston at 9:03 AM on May 11, 2006

monju_bosatsu, go back and read the question again and the faq entry. The person answers their own question. They were just polling the audience. We have to head these things off because half of ask mefi would be filled with people asking about their favorite x and it offers little utility while offering tons of noise.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:04 AM on May 11, 2006

We need a "move to metachat" command for tha admins so that the entire post, with comments, is moved intact to MetaChat where discussion can continue, fairly uninterruptedly. We could even make a "move to MetaChat" flag, for those posts that "OMG breaks the guidelines but I love this question!"
posted by Eideteker at 9:09 AM on May 11, 2006

that's a terrible idea, there.
posted by puke & cry at 9:40 AM on May 11, 2006

They were just polling the audience.

Bingo. This was a no brainer. Allow that and askme goes down hill.

Besides, after listenting to gladiator I'm still trying to get my ears to stop bleading.
posted by justgary at 9:44 AM on May 11, 2006

Bleeding also.
posted by justgary at 10:12 AM on May 11, 2006

Count me as firmly glad that crap was deleted.
posted by Rhomboid at 11:07 AM on May 11, 2006

It was more like "Here's 10 songs I like!"

yeah. seriously. I was gonna be all stoked to go inside and find more songs by awesome awesome hard rockin late eighties hair bands like Riot and also, well, Quiet Riot, and you know, Whitesnake and White Lion, and instead it was a bunch of people being all "HEY I THINK MY MUSICAL TASTES ARE PRETTY HIP".

I'm sorry, but you put any of those songs up against say, the Scorpions, "In Trance", and there will be no question as to which song rocks more.

although I was happy to see that the Jesus Lizard was mentioned within the first few comments. Still, the selection clearly should have been "Puss", or possibly "Blockbuster".

ALSO HA HA THE BANDS I LIKE ARE BETTER THAN THE ONES YOU LIKE AND MY DAD CAN BEAT UP YOUR DAD AND COUNTING CROWS SUCKS
posted by fishfucker at 11:10 AM on May 11, 2006

My dad is dead you insensitive prick!
posted by puke & cry at 11:19 AM on May 11, 2006

I think form is a very important way to judge what stays or goes. Much better than something as subjective as "quality". If the proper form is followed (almost) any question will stand, wether or not those with deletion powers care about it or think it is good quality.
If I got to delete AskMe threads based on my opinion of what is quality the page would be pretty blank. And it only gets trickier if we start saying it has to be quality for a perceived audience (MeFi members).
So count me a fan of the form guideline.
posted by edgeways at 12:58 PM on May 11, 2006

No one rocks as hard as Journey.

No one.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:47 PM on May 11, 2006

I would have suggest Neutral Milk Hotel's Holland, 1945 or Ghost, myself.

Niiiice.

ALSO HA HA THE BANDS I LIKE ARE BETTER THAN THE ONES YOU LIKE AND MY DAD CAN BEAT UP YOUR DAD AND COUNTING CROWS SUCKS

Your mom is in the Counting Crows.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:25 PM on May 11, 2006

You keep a Mariah Carey CD hidden inside a Sleater-Kinney jewel case.

The CD is "Emotions."

You cry during track three. Every time.
posted by cortex at 3:47 PM on May 11, 2006

Metafilter is all about how your favorite band sucks. Suck it loser.
posted by caddis at 3:49 PM on May 11, 2006

Your mom is in the Counting Crows.

technically, until the operation, Adam is my step-dad.
posted by fishfucker at 4:05 PM on May 11, 2006

The fact that you even know that there is someone named Adam in the Crows shows there is no hope for you.
posted by caddis at 4:09 PM on May 11, 2006

Despite my pronouncement above about the genre, I do suggest that "Texas is the Reason" by Spiralling is one great and recent rock and roll tune. (They don't seem to have it on the site right now; too bad.)
posted by caddis at 4:17 PM on May 11, 2006

We have to head these things off because half of ask mefi would be filled with people asking about their favorite x and it offers little utility while offering tons of noise.

Well, let's be careful not to tell people how to recraft their polls in the proper form, else they'll do the same, no?

monju's form-over-substance point stands.
posted by dreamsign at 5:04 PM on May 11, 2006

Journey did have a video game......but SO did KISS...and Aerosmith
posted by Megafly at 5:17 PM on May 11, 2006

The fact that you even know that there is someone named Adam in the Crows shows there is no hope for you.

Well, that's many levels less frightening than knowing the title of a Mariah Carey CD, much less that the third track is all sad and stuff.

(Disclaimer: I have Rock Balls the size of fully-operational death stars, but I don't dislike the Counting Crows.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:30 PM on May 11, 2006

Well, that's many levels less frightening than knowing the title of a Mariah Carey CD, much less that the third track is all sad and stuff.

Know thine enemy, lad. I can also tell you stories about Kim Swift's Mountain Car, an album so pointlessly bad and unheard of that I may be the only person ever to have listened to it.
posted by cortex at 5:39 PM on May 11, 2006

*fans self vigorously*

Been so long since somebody called me 'lad', ah think ah've got the vapours!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:01 PM on May 11, 2006

the vapours!

Man, I was all ready to jump your bones until I saw that extra u.
posted by cortex at 9:05 PM on May 11, 2006

"No, I'm not. It's precisely this form-over-substance approach to deletion of this kind of question that leads to complaints about moderation. If tweaking the wording slightly without changing the substance or function of the question avoids deletion, then it's silly to delete it for failing to utter the talismanic phrases."

I answered this objection of yours before in another meta thread, and I thought you'd appreciate and be inclined to agree because of your perspective as an attorney. In fact, I find it very strange that you'd take the position that you are taking.

The argument here is about the spirit and letter of the law. Ideally, when crafting a law, you want it to be identical in spirit and letter. That's perhaps never possible, so you do the best you can. If you've not done well, then you'll have to take up the matter again and try to fix what's wrong. That the legistlating side of things.

On the enforcement side, however, the enforcer is put in the difficult position of enforcing what everyone involved wants to be the spirit of the law when, really, the only reliable guide the enforcer has is the letter of the law. Therefore, the enforcer should follow the letter of the law except in extreme cases, and then only with great reservation.

Matt and jess play both law maker and enforcer roles. That complicates things a bit because it becomes necessary to clarify whether a criticism of something they've done is criticism of them as lawgivers or law enforcers.

Your argument is that the letter of the law strays far from the spirit because if this weren't the case, then changing just a few apparently irrelevant words of an unacceptable question wouldn't make it acceptable.

And maybe you're right.

But in terms of enforcement, the enforcer is really limited to just enforcing the letter of the law. It is not the enforcer's job to divine what the asker "really" meant, it is their job to decide if the asker's question meets a few practical tests.

Now lets go back to the lawmaker side.

If you're trying to get the spirit and letter of the law to be identical you're going to have a hard time doing so. There's basically two opposing directions you can go in doing so. The first is to try to account for all the actual, practical experiences where the law would apply and resolve them explicitly in the law according to the spirit of what the law is trying to achieve. There's still ambiguity, and people are still going to complain that we (all of us in a civic community) are constrained by what the lawmakers think is the spirit of the law and not (magically, somehow) what the polis as a whole thinks the spirit of the law is. (This could sort of apply here as although matt is the Emporer and lawmaker, he takes limited advisement from the polis.)

The other way is to keep the law vague but hopefully expressive of its spirit, and allow the enforcer great leeway in understanding what that spirit is and how to translate that into enforcement.

In this case, where the lawmaker and law enforcer are actually the same person, it makes a lot of sense to use the latter approach because the enforcer truly does know what the law maker intended. On the other hand, given that a big part of law making is constructing it such that the necessity of active enforcement is minimal, a "I know it when I see it" test is not one that will translate well into explaining to people how they should behave. So even in the case where the enforcer has a lot of latitude, the lawmaker is still contrained by the practical aspect of wanting the law to be practically clear enough so that there's not a lot of enforcement required because of unintentional violations because people don't know what the hell the rule is.

So, all that I've written taken together is a sort of defense of matt and jess because no matter how much an entire system is set up to create laws and enforce them according to some clear purpose beyond their technicality, the fact that laws are effectively codes of conduct require that they be practical and explicit because people will inevitably diagree about the correct methods to achieve a goal. A law ratifies a goal, but it also ratifies a method. And it become necessary to enfore that method.

And it seems to me that while monju's argument is a provocative litmus test that something may need to be improved in precisely how the law is written; it's not alone sufficient to prove such a thing. It's not sufficient because it seems to me that because there will always be a gap between ideal and practical, there is no actual statement of a law that will be completely immune from being obeyed in letter but not in spirit.

A rule has to be practical and technical. It is not a strike against it when it is enofrced practically and technically.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:14 PM on May 11, 2006

Man, I was all ready to jump your bones until I saw that extra u.

Canadians can be sexy, too.

Right?



....right?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:57 PM on May 11, 2006

Canadians can be sexy, too.

Right?

I'd give you a conciliatory pat you on the knee, but I'm afraid you'd take it the wrong way.
posted by cortex at 6:45 AM on May 12, 2006

*unconvincingly pretends to cry*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:31 AM on May 12, 2006

*hesitates; loses*
posted by cortex at 7:49 AM on May 12, 2006