Disney's Divinity wrote:I haven’t read
any Pixar-bashers in this thread. Maybe Newman-bashers at the most. Not everyone has to unquestionably accept whatever Pixar serves the academy like you do.

Excuse me? If there is one Pixar-basher, it's you. Or was that conspiracy theory about the so-called 'anti-Disney bias' (boo hoo!) of the Academy
not yours? Didn't you came up with the outrageous, unsupported claim that the Academy uses the name 'Pixar' as an excuse to nominate animated films? Besides, it's well known on this forum that you have a long history of Piaxar-bashing. But of course, besides you, there were many other people who were bashing Pixar, including people suggesting they were bribing the Academy. Which is ironic, because all the success Pixar has, makes Disney money. You know, because Pixar is now part of Disney?
Disney's Divinity wrote:Btw, I find it distasteful that you have to imply that everyone that doesn't agree with you are like dogs. But I'm not surprised.
"A Pavlovian reaction" is a very normal, generally accepted term in conversations. It's not my fault that you either have a very limited vocabulary or that you don't know what the expression means. But to try to use that against me is rather pathetic.
Disney's Divinity wrote:And I don't get why everyone has to dramatize the reactions of those who didn't agree with the award. Besides DisneyJedi, nobody was "overreacting." They (and I) were just expressing understandable anger over someone who didn't deserve to win winning. Even if Menken weren't the one to win, the fact that Newman took the award is a joke.
Why is that a joke? Because you say so? Because all the Pixar-bashers who can't get over the fact that the music of
Rapunzel blew say so? To say it's not the Pixar-bashers who overdramatize things, is turning the world upside down.
Sotiris wrote:Seriously, let's put aside the "tune" or "melody" of Newman's song that you might like. You are actually telling me you enjoy listening to him
singing?

The horror!

In fact, I do like his singing. Very much, indeed. You see, a song doesn't have to be performed squeeky-clean for me to enjoy it. If the artist is being authentic and put his heart and soul in a song, it's not important that he doesn't sound like the mainstream. Newman understands how to built a song, how to phrase it and how to time it. That's what makes him a good artist.
I can see how his singing might be off-putting, at first. But once you 'get' him, you'll appreciate him. It's not easy listening, but that makes it all the more interesting. It's the same reason many people, including me, love Bob Dylan, but to a very large part of the audience (maybe even the majority) he sounds awful. And I admit, he doesn't have a nice voice. To say he sings beautifully would be a lie. But he can
do anything with that voice. He can
use that voice in a way few other artists can, and that's what makes his songs so beautiful. His phrasing has been unmatched, and it's part of the reason why the people who do love him, react to him so strongly. I think it's the same way with Randy Newman.
Example of Dylan's recent singing (2009):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDMCaGNtsu0
I'm sure in comparison, you'll think Newman's singing is brilliant. But once you 'get' Dylan, you see why the song is so powerful.
DisneyJedi wrote: I DON'T NEED TO TAKE THIS FROM A BUNCH OF ASSHOLES!!!!! BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE IS ON THIS SITE!!!!! A BUNCH OF ASSHOLES WHO LIKE TO PICK ON OTHERS LIKE EVERY OTHER JERK IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
