4 ms·

This is a bad analogy because if you are the club owner you already own a freaking club. Of course I'd want to be the club owner, making big bucks as a guitar p

by anonjon 17y ago

This is a bad analogy because if you are the club owner you already own a freaking club. Of course I'd want to be the club owner, making big bucks as a guitar player is a crap-shoot. You'll most likely fail as a musician and end up a computer programmer. If i sell the club that's money in my pocket. This analogy isn't a paradox. It has nothing to do with deep concentration. It is a choice between a sure thing and most likely nothing.

dasil003 17y ago
All analogies break down eventually, but in this case I think you're jumping the gun. Do you have any idea how many clubs open and fail? Anyone can get a loan and open a club. Making it successful is a whole nother ball of wax.
- anonjon 17y ago
  Well I'm sure a lot of clubs open and fail. But one has to assume that if you are opening a club, you have already been successful somewhere else. There is a much greater portrayal of starving musicians than there are starving club owners. It clearly follows that if you were not elsewise successful, and able to buy a club, your cousin Vinny has gifted this club to you in an offer that you simply could not pass up. Failing as a club owner almost directly implies that you failed in a secondary, non-career pursuit. The only way you can really starve in that situation is if you are a complete moron and actually invested your own money. Millions of guitarists, however, go hungry in the streets every day. Besides if you've taken out a loan to get the club, are you really a club owner? It seems like you are a proprietor most. Besides, the point of analogies is that they be based on easily falsifiable things that /seem to be/ true. An analogy is a metaphor. You know, literature fluff. This comparison doesn't /seem/ to be true, whether it is or not.
  - dasil003 17y ago
    I understood the point of the article to be what it takes to be a successful club owner vs a successful guitarist and in that regard I think it worked even if the analogy is very rough around the edges.

by anonjon 17y ago

dasil003 17y ago

All analogies break down eventually, but in this case I think you're jumping the gun. Do you have any idea how many clubs open and fail? Anyone can get a loan and open a club. Making it successful is a whole nother ball of wax.

anonjon 17y ago
Well I'm sure a lot of clubs open and fail. But one has to assume that if you are opening a club, you have already been successful somewhere else. There is a much greater portrayal of starving musicians than there are starving club owners. It clearly follows that if you were not elsewise successful, and able to buy a club, your cousin Vinny has gifted this club to you in an offer that you simply could not pass up. Failing as a club owner almost directly implies that you failed in a secondary, non-career pursuit. The only way you can really starve in that situation is if you are a complete moron and actually invested your own money. Millions of guitarists, however, go hungry in the streets every day. Besides if you've taken out a loan to get the club, are you really a club owner? It seems like you are a proprietor most. Besides, the point of analogies is that they be based on easily falsifiable things that /seem to be/ true. An analogy is a metaphor. You know, literature fluff. This comparison doesn't /seem/ to be true, whether it is or not.
- dasil003 17y ago
  I understood the point of the article to be what it takes to be a successful club owner vs a successful guitarist and in that regard I think it worked even if the analogy is very rough around the edges.