Jump to content
ddmilne

FIZZ

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

Well, compared to the internal cabs, I vastly prefer playing through my own IRs, at least once it's about gig/rehearsal volume. So, in a way, for me that's a sort of requirement - and I defenitely wouldn't have bought the Helix without an IR loading option.

 

 

And it's totally awesome it allows that feature. Maybe someday I'l find myself using them more. For now, I only use a 3rd party IR 5% of the time, if that. 

 

Options are always a win though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

...

I do however wish there were more IR slots, which would make sorting out IRs while playing a whole lot more effcient experience.

 

No kidding, more IR slots would be fantastic.  If there isn't enough memory onboard for them you could allow Helix setlists to be designated for IR storage. In other words every setlist would have an option to be designated as a setlist or an IR list. The IR and preset files are similar in size so it might be doable. I would happily sacrifice a setlist or two for more IR slots.

 

Vote it up: https://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Add-additional-slots-for-IRs/892101-23508

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would as well love an option to save IRs with a patch so there'd be no more confusion regarding "Which IR should be loaded into the slot this patch is using?" - as much as I love the Helix (and I *really* do), that kind of organisation is just as bad as it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

I would as well love an option to save IRs with a patch so there'd be no more confusion regarding "Which IR should be loaded into the slot this patch is using?" - as much as I love the Helix (and I *really* do), that kind of organisation is just as bad as it gets.

 

Although that would eliminate the necessity for having to retain an IR in a specific slot/location it would also cause any preset using an IR to require more storage space, increase the size of the backups, and would also mean that you would have redundant storage of IRs. The same IR might be stored in 50 different presets. If there were unlimited storage onboard or a way to connect a flash drive for additional storage I would be fine by this method. I love the idea of the preset and its IR being self-contained. However, given the current limitations on memory/storage (whatever they are) I think a preferable approach might be to retain the idea of pointers to the IRs; the strategy currently used on the Helix. Providing the ability for users to add  potentially hundreds more IRs by allowing setlists to be designated as IR lists would add enough room not to have to worry about shifting IRs around to accommodate your latest favorites, avoid storing the same IR multiple times, and would work for most people I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HonestOpinion said:

 

Although that would eliminate the necessity for having to retain an IR in a specific slot/location it would also cause any preset to require more storage space, increase the size of the backups, and would also mean that you would have redundant storage of IRs. The same IR might be stored in 50 different presets. If there were unlimited storage onboard or a way to connect a flash drive for additional storage I would be fine by this method. I love the idea of the preset and its IR being self-contained. However, given the current limitations on memory/storage (whatever they are) I think a preferable approach would be to retain the idea of pointers to the IRs; the strategy currently used on the Helix. Adding the ability for users to add  potentially hundreds more IRs by allowing setlists to be designated as IR lists would add enough room not to have to worry about shifting IRs around, avoid storing the same IR multiple times, and would work for most people I think.

 

Would also raise copyright issues, as licensed IRs could then be distributed at will. Not that bent users can't do that now, but it takes an act of will, whereas Customtone would be full of presets with protected IRs. People wouldn't even think about it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HonestOpinion said:

 

Although that would eliminate the necessity for having to retain an IR in a specific slot/location it would also cause any preset using an IR to require more storage space, increase the size of the backups, and would also mean that you would have redundant storage of IRs. The same IR might be stored in 50 different presets.

 

Well, this could be adressed by the Helix looking for IR names and checksums. "IR already exists in storage - use existing IR or add new IR, yes/no?"

Just offering more IR slots would only make the problem worse once you fill up patches and IR slots. It'd only work with literally unlimited IR space (something that doesn't exist). Patches should at least tell you which IR they're looking for instead of only referencing a certain slot. In addition, it should be possible to save IRs along with patches (not in one consolidated file) so you would at least be able to load them in case they're missing for whatever reasons. As is, once your patches and IRs are outside of the Helix, there's zero information about which patch is using which IR - to keep track of that, you *need* to use whatever textfiles along with the patches. Which, sorry to say so, is completely awkward and kinda like last century tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

 

Would also raise copyright issues, as licensed IRs could then be distributed at will. Not that bent users can't do that now, but it takes an act of will, whereas Customtone would be full of presets with protected IRs. People wouldn't even think about it.

 

I don't think that would be a huge issue. Could be checked just as easily as an licensed IR "hidden" in a zip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw, the easiest way to adress all this would be to treat IRs like samples in a software sampler such as Kontakt or Battery. You can save patches without or with samples. The samples are placed in a separate folder next to the patch file. And in case you load a patch and the samples are missing, you're presented a search dialog. Could be every bit the same with the Helix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

Well, this could be adressed by the Helix looking for IR names and checksums. "IR already exists in storage - use existing IR or add new IR, yes/no?"

Just offering more IR slots would only make the problem worse once you fill up patches and IR slots. It'd only work with literally unlimited IR space (something that doesn't exist). Patches should at least tell you which IR they're looking for instead of only referencing a certain slot. In addition, it should be possible to save IRs along with patches (not in one consolidated file) so you would at least be able to load them in case they're missing for whatever reasons. As is, once your patches and IRs are outside of the Helix, there's zero information about which patch is using which IR - to keep track of that, you *need* to use whatever textfiles along with the patches. Which, sorry to say so, is completely awkward and kinda like last century tech.

 

Not sure I follow exactly. You can currently restore IR files back to their original locations with a backup restore. Additionally I think there is a compromise to be found between near unlimited IR storage space and just having a lot more storage space. As I said having the ability to store IRs and pull them from a flash drive would be grand. Maybe we will see this on the Helix successor's hardware version. In the meantime most people  excepting the most fanatical IR users would find hundreds of slots to be more than sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

I don't think that would be a huge issue. Could be checked just as easily as an licensed IR "hidden" in a zip.

 

You want to pay the lawyers to work that out?

 

Just now, SaschaFranck said:

Fwiw, the easiest way to adress all this would be to treat IRs like samples in a software sampler such as Kontakt or Battery. You can save patches without or with samples. The samples are placed in a separate folder next to the patch file. And in case you load a patch and the samples are missing, you're presented a search dialog. Could be every bit the same with the Helix.

 

You make lots of assumptions about what are essentially programming issues, and since I doubt you have any knowledge of the source code, you're basically making wild guesses about what might be possible or what it would cost to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

I don't think that would be a huge issue. Could be checked just as easily as an licensed IR "hidden" in a zip.

 

Seems like this would require every IR maker to adopt the same license checking protocol that would then have to be integrated into the Helix preset loading process. It would have to happen upon load as you certainly would not want a license check occurring every time you dialed in a preset with an IR. Sounds incredibly unlikely to happen. Anyway, starting to hijack this "Fizz" thread, sorry about that to the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HonestOpinion said:

Anyway, starting to hijack this "Fizz" thread, sorry about that to the OP.

 

Yes, I was thinking this too... so I'll leave it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HonestOpinion said:

 

Not sure I follow exactly. You can currently restore IR files back to their original locations with a backup restore. Additionally I think there is a compromise to be found between near unlimited IR storage space and just having a lot more storage space. As I said having the ability to store IRs and pull them from a flash drive would be grand. Maybe we will see this on the next Helix version. In the meantime most people  excepting the most fanatical IR users would find hundreds of slots to be more than sufficient.

 

The backup restore isn't even remotely sufficient. I don't want to restore the entire shebang all the time but load and manage different bits here and there.

And no, it's not about the overall number of IRs, either.

I'll give you an example: The patches I created so far are all using just 3 IRs. These IRs are located in slots 3, 5 and 6. Should I plan to keep these patches, I will *never ever* be able to resort my IRs at all. At least not slots 3, 5 and 6. Should I ever plan to resort my IRs though, I would have to go through *each and every* patch, checking which IR they're using - because it could as well be one of those 3 - this would result in a) the patch missing the IR and/or b) the patch loading a completely different IR - namely one of those being placed in slots 3,5 and 6 after I resorted them. The only way to keep track of all of this (aside from doing complete backups and restoring them, which I don't even accept as a halfway decent solution) would be to manually write down which patch is using which IR every time I create a new patch.

Seriously, the entire thing is no rocket science at all - all decent software samplers are dealing with pretty much the same issue since decades already. And they're doing fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

You make lots of assumptions about what are essentially programming issues, and since I doubt you have any knowledge of the source code, you're basically making wild guesses about what might be possible or what it would cost to implement.

 

See software samplers. I have around 2 decades as a betatester of audio software on my belt (some pretty wellknown names among those companies), so I have a pretty good idea of what is possible, even without being a coder myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HonestOpinion said:

 Anyway, starting to hijack this "Fizz" thread, sorry about that to the OP.

 

Oops, yeah - sorry from my side, too.

Plenty of room for discussion regarding IR management, though, as it seems. Will perhaps start a new thread later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 6:02 PM, HonestOpinion said:

 

Good luck. If you persevere you will either be successful or be able to at least conclusively determine that digital modeling through an FRFR is just not for you. Many players here have gone through the same initial frustration you are experiencing. Strictly anecdotal but I remember being dubious myself about the tone when I first got my Helix until somewhere along the way I was playing a gig with an accomplished and longtime guitarist with a Mesa Boogie V and analog pedalboard rig with a great sound and to my shock and genuine surprise I was much happier with my tone than theirs. Not to speak of the range of tones and effects I was able to dial up quickly during the performance.

 

Switching from playing through a traditional guitar speaker to a FRFR has a steep learning curve, mostly centered around getting the EQ and output levels right. For the most part as has been pointed out so many times before many of us grew up listening to guitar through guitar cabs with speakers like Celestions that have a signature frequency response and very limited frequency range. Getting that sound out of an FRFR monitor or direct to the PA from your Helix is challenging. Some people get lucky right from jump and have just the right combination of presets, FRFR, cabling, guitar pickups, etc. to require minimal tweaking but they are probably in the minority.  For the rest of us it took some experimentation and trial and error with others' suggestions to find a great sound but rest assured, it is in there!

 

For more immediate gratification running your Helix or any digital modeler through a traditional guitar cab usually requires less initial EQ than an FRFR as the guitar speaker will take care of a lot of that for you. Even running through a guitar cab requires some adjustment though. All I can say is hang in there, it may seem like a pipe dream now but great sounds are to be found once you get familiar with your device.  The returns in flexibility, variety of tones and effects, authentic sounding amp/cab emulations, ease of transport, reliability and repeatability, no tubes to replace or bias and fewer points of failure, and a host of other benefits derived from modeling to an FRFR are worth the effort but don't come overnight for most folks.

Thanks HonestOpinion.. I will definitely keep tweaking. My goal is to use the Helix LT on my band gigs and the Helix Stomp HX on my solo gigs. I hope I can make this work. The small format of the Stomp is perfect for my solo gigs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

The backup restore isn't even remotely sufficient. I don't want to restore the entire shebang all the time but load and manage different bits here and there.

And no, it's not about the overall number of IRs, either.

I'll give you an example: The patches I created so far are all using just 3 IRs. These IRs are located in slots 3, 5 and 6. Should I plan to keep these patches, I will *never ever* be able to resort my IRs at all. At least not slots 3, 5 and 6. Should I ever plan to resort my IRs though, I would have to go through *each and every* patch, checking which IR they're using - because it could as well be one of those 3 - this would result in a) the patch missing the IR and/or b) the patch loading a completely different IR - namely one of those being placed in slots 3,5 and 6 after I resorted them. The only way to keep track of all of this (aside from doing complete backups and restoring them, which I don't even accept as a halfway decent solution) would be to manually write down which patch is using which IR every time I create a new patch.

Seriously, the entire thing is no rocket science at all - all decent software samplers are dealing with pretty much the same issue since decades already. And they're doing fine.

IF you Export your IRs they get numbered. Drop 3, 5, 6 back in their slots and load up the rest with whatever you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gunpointmetal said:

IF you Export your IRs they get numbered. Drop 3, 5, 6 back in their slots and load up the rest with whatever you want.

 

No, they don't get numbered. I just selected a bunch and exported them. They kept their original names without any numbering added. Is there any trick I'm missing?

Besides, that wouldn't solve the problem at all because in case you're exporting IRs to slap in new ones, the slots might be occupied. In addition, even if they would get numbered, that still doesn't tell you anything about the relationships between patches and IRs.

No matter how you put it, IR handling and especially management is completely awkward, chances of data (= patch) loss included. The only workaround is to manually keep track of each and every IR you use for each and every patch. Which is a method from last century or so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

No, they don't get numbered. I just selected a bunch and exported them. They kept their original names without any numbering added. Is there any trick I'm missing?

Besides, that wouldn't solve the problem at all because in case you're exporting IRs to slap in new ones, the slots might be occupied. In addition, even if they would get numbered, that still doesn't tell you anything about the relationships between patches and IRs.

No matter how you put it, IR handling and especially management is completely awkward, chances of data (= patch) loss included. The only workaround is to manually keep track of each and every IR you use for each and every patch. Which is a method from last century or so...

I don't know, I just clicked "Export" in the IR window in Edit and gave it a destination, then all my IRs had the same names except with a "01-, 02-" etc prefix on the file names. I'm sure there'd be a better way to include the files with patches as far as like a digital signature something, but I'm also sure there is limited space for storage inside the Helix. It's never been an issue for me because live I use a total of two IRs across 4-5 presets, and the only time I'd ever need to audition through more than 128 IRs would be in a studio situation, and whether at home or remote, a DAW has the facility to load IR's to audition, as well as the fact that I can record a DI track and get a "close enough" sound to track with with the IRs on the device and reamp it with whatever I or the mix engineer wants later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, gunpointmetal said:

I don't know, I just clicked "Export" in the IR window in Edit and gave it a destination, then all my IRs had the same names except with a "01-, 02-" etc prefix on the file names. I'm sure there'd be a better way to include the files with patches as far as like a digital signature something, but I'm also sure there is limited space for storage inside the Helix. It's never been an issue for me because live I use a total of two IRs across 4-5 presets, and the only time I'd ever need to audition through more than 128 IRs would be in a studio situation, and whether at home or remote, a DAW has the facility to load IR's to audition, as well as the fact that I can record a DI track and get a "close enough" sound to track with with the IRs on the device and reamp it with whatever I or the mix engineer wants later. 

 

As said, over here (macOS 10.13.6) there's no numbers added when exporting IRs, no idea why it seems to be different over at your place - and that would at least be something, even if it doesn't remotely adress the issues I'm having. I won't be using many cab IRs, either, maybe 5-10 of my own, I do as well agree that for recordings, DAWs have better options to deal with these things. But I plan to use quite some "creative" IRs, as in changing pickup resonances, applying certain complexed frequency curves to acoustic guitars, etc. And to keep track of all that, I would need better IR handling. Besides, regardless of whether one is using lots of IRs or not, there should be a decent organisation scheme - right now there's nothing, really. In case I'd send you 5 Helix patches and 5 IRs you would have *no* chance to get them right others than by raw luck. But in case I'd send you 5 Kontakt patches and 5 samples, they would all be perfect instantly. And that's precisely what I think should be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stumbled across this thread after searching for 'clipping' as I'm having a problem with this too. I haven't read through the entire thread so I apologise if what I'm about to say has already been covered. Having had the Helix for only a day I have found that the default settings for the amp models are way too hot and the 'digital clipping' artifacts are a major issue for me too. The issue, for me  at least, is most prominent on the models that load up with their master volumes on 10. The clipping can be reduced considerably by bringing this down. In some cases, the channel volume also has to come down to get rid of it. With the amp model bypassed I can't make the signal clip, so on the positive side it is definitely a software issue. Like I said, I've only had it for a day so I have a lot of experimenting to do. I remember having the same issue with the POD HD (I think they improved it with later firmware updates). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, merdenoms74 said:

I stumbled across this thread after searching for 'clipping' as I'm having a problem with this too. I haven't read through the entire thread so I apologise if what I'm about to say has already been covered. Having had the Helix for only a day I have found that the default settings for the amp models are way too hot and the 'digital clipping' artifacts are a major issue for me too. The issue, for me  at least, is most prominent on the models that load up with their master volumes on 10. The clipping can be reduced considerably by bringing this down. In some cases, the channel volume also has to come down to get rid of it. With the amp model bypassed I can't make the signal clip, so on the positive side it is definitely a software issue. Like I said, I've only had it for a day so I have a lot of experimenting to do. I remember having the same issue with the POD HD (I think they improved it with later firmware updates). 

 

Whatever it is you feel you're hearing, it is not digital clipping.

 

Especially in regards to the Master volumes being set at 10. The amps that have their Masters set at 10 never had Master volume knobs in the first place, so if you lower them you're changing the true sound of the modelled amp and making it behave in a way that would have been impossible in the real world. That's not to say you can't do it - it might even sound good.

 

Whatever the case though, that is not at all what digital clipping is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw, even if what merdenoms74 describes might not be digital clipping, it's pretty tough to keep track of levels inside the Helix (which is a wellknown thing). Quite strange that there's not any kind of level indicators at least inside HX Edit - I mean, HX Native has two of them already. I don't exactly have a problem with levels but there's a slight tendency for my patches to become louder and louder the more I tweak around - which is kind of a normal thing as we seem to perceive louder as better pretty often. As a result I usually have to wade through them once I'm almost done, checking all the important levels. In case there were proper level meters, I would run into these issues less often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kilrahi said:

 

Whatever it is you feel you're hearing, it is not digital clipping.

 

Especially in regards to the Master volumes being set at 10. The amps that have their Masters set at 10 never had Master volume knobs in the first place, so if you lower them you're changing the true sound of the modeled amp and making it behave in a way that would have been impossible in the real world. That's not to say you can't do it - it might even sound good.

 

Whatever the case though, that is not at all what digital clipping is.

Okay, well if it's not clipping, what is it? It's certainly not a sound a real amp would make unless the examples Line 6 based their models on had blown speakers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some sort of level meters, at least in HX Edit, would definitely be helpful. But as DI has pointed out, ultimately, our ears have to be the final judge.

Just last night I was attempting to level a preset using a clean amp and 3 dist/OD effects of progressively more aggressive character. I was using a db meter and, when clean was even with od1,od2 and od3 on the meter, it was apparent that the levels my ears perceived were not the same as the db meter was showing. When the levels finally SOUNDED even, I wound up with a 6db difference on the meter between the clean sound and od3. How could there be that big a difference between what my ears hear and what a db meter placed at roughly the same position as my ears relative to the speaker picks up? And yet, there it was. I don't know if an electronic/digital totally ITB representation would be different, but I doubt it. If anything, I think it would be worse.

 

Again, meters would be helpful to set ballpark /relative levels,, but our ears have to make the final determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, merdenoms74 said:

Okay, well if it's not clipping, what is it? It's certainly not a sound a real amp would make unless the examples Line 6 based their models on had blown speakers. 

 

Attach the preset you're working with so someone can see/hear what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

 

Attach the preset you're working with so someone can see/hear what you're talking about.

Will do this evening, which will probably be the middle of the night/early morning for most of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did you usually hear your real amps? Line 6 modeling defaults usually mimic an amp with all the dials cranked, but chances are your actual volume on your output device isn't cranked.

 

This means you're having a purely digital experience impossible in the real world. I think it's gorgeous, but it can be very disconcerting at first.

 

Quickest way to find out if that's bothering you is to crank your output device to real amp levels.

 

What are you using to hear it anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2018 at 7:02 PM, ddmilne said:

This is a shout out to Line6 concerning the Helix. You did a great job in setting up the interface so that it could useful and intuitive with scribble strips and tons of other ground breaking options. But, it is clear from the thousands of complaints about "apparent digital clipping", "fizziness", bright pick attack, which are all elements of the same problem, that fixes need to be forthcoming. I would like to stay with and buy outright the Helix if these things are fixed. Presently, I have one that is being rented to me so that I can see if it is going to work for me before I put out 2000.00 dollars. Now I know some of you on the forum see this as complaining , but I just spent almost 60 Hours over the past week and a half learning how to get near good tones without getting there. I did everything that was recommended and followed the most popular experts on youtube. Still the problem is there. LINE6 Please, look at this issue and see if improvements can be made. Regards

...listen to what says John Mayer about  here: htpps://www.musicradar.com/news/john-mayer-says-amp-modelling-is-close-but-not-quite-perfect-yet

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, viola said:

...listen to what says John Mayer about  here: htpps://www.musicradar.com/news/john-mayer-says-amp-modelling-is-close-but-not-quite-perfect-yet

 

 

Dude has said some pretty weird things in this day. This probably doesn't even rank on the top ten, but it's still amusing.

 

Great guitar player though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kilrahi said:

 

Dude has said some pretty weird things in this day.

 

Defenitely. But honestly, what would our statements look like in case we were sponsored by all the big guns in the analog business?

"Hey, sorry Two Rock, I don't need your signature model anymore, modeling is every bit up to it!"

Unlikely...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

Defenitely. But honestly, what would our statements look like in case we were sponsored by all the big guns in the analog business?

"Hey, sorry Two Rock, I don't need your signature model anymore, modeling is every bit up to it!"

Unlikely...

 

Dude's got about a trillion dollars. The money he makes on endorsements of VERY high ticket items is chump change. He endorses anybody he wants to.

His endorsements also serve to improve the industry. How many years have we all been waiting and praying for modelers with TRUE WAPOOSH? Now L6 has a clear and objectively defined target to shoot for! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

 

Dude's got about a trillion dollars. The money he makes on endorsements of VERY high ticket items is chump change. He endorses anybody he wants to.

His endorsements also serve to improve the industry. How many years have we all been waiting and praying for modelers with TRUE WAPOOSH? Now L6 has a clear and objectively defined target to shoot for! :-)

 

Last night as I was doing the laundry, I heard from the machine what sounded like the perfect and most true "wapoosh" sound I've ever heard.

 

I think that's probably the secret right there. Line 6 needs to implement a whirlpool model, with controls for both hot or cold water. Extra rinse would be nice too!

 

Obviously they should focus on the older 80's models. None of that current digital lollipop. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

 

Dude's got about a trillion dollars. The money he makes on endorsements of VERY high ticket items is chump change. He endorses anybody he wants to.

 

Sure - but seriously, do you think Two Rock (to stick with that) would happily built a JM signature model if he was all into modeling?

And then there's of course the looks. If you can afford touring with what would make each and every collectors mouth water, I guess you just do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how good someone may be, I honestly can't recall a single utterance from anyone in the entertainment industry, on any topic, that was worth listening to... anything they say directly serves one of two things... their ego, or their wallet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, cruisinon2 said:

No matter how good someone may be, I honestly can't recall a single utterance from anyone in the entertainment industry, on any topic, that was worth listening to... anything they say directly serves one of two things... their ego, or their wallet.

 

Isn't that true of every human utterance since the beginning of time? Unless you truly believe in the myth of altruism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rd2rk said:

 

Isn't that true of every human utterance since the beginning of time? Unless you truly believe in the myth of altruism?

 

Well we're all full of $hit to an extent, yes... but entertainers have almost made it an art form of it's own, eclipsed only by politicians and TV preachers. Joe Average isn't a good enough actor to pull it off grand scale bull$hit.... most are lucky if they can get their significant other to believe they were "out with the guys/girls". ;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, rd2rk said:

 

 Unless you truly believe in the myth of altruism?

 

Would it be a bad thing to at least try to believe in altruism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

Would it be a bad thing to at least try to believe in altruism?

 

To "try to believe" in the impossible is foolish.

To try to consider the effects of our actions on others is indeed, a laudable goal, and really, as flawed humans, the best that we can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...