The Grayfox
Nija
This is the best thing I've ever done on this forum. That's right, 20+ years as a member and this is the pinnacle.
New album Foregone out February 2023
- Thread starter TheJestersDoor
- Start date
This is the best thing I've ever done on this forum. That's right, 20+ years as a member and this is the pinnacle.
I didn't realise ChatGPT's web search capabilities had advanced to the point of literally being able to read individual forums to make profiles of users. And it's pretty accurate too. I had a similarly amusing moment when it quoted me joking about using pension credits to attend an IF show, and therefore assuming I am a geriatric In Flames fan.
GPT appreciates my status, but fears my swashbuckling posting style.
GPT appreciates my status, but fears my swashbuckling posting style.
Damn, this is a comprehensive summary of the SunOfMyth saga, lmao.
"I scanned the entire Foregone thread starting at the page you gave and pulled every post by SunOfMyth, plus the surrounding replies and reactions. Below is a careful, evidence-backed timeline and a deep read of SunOfMyth’s contributions and how the forum reacted.
Quick summary of the key sources I used (so you can check): SunOfMyth’s profile (shows 5 messages, joined Jan 18 2023); the forum search results listing the five posts I found; the thread pages containing the posts and the replies.
Timeline — every SunOfMyth post (chronological)
(Paraphrases are used; short quotations are <25 words.)
1. Post #2,205 — Jan 18, 2023 (first post, page 111)
Paraphrase: New account, welcoming tone at first — wonders why some forum users are determined to “diminish” the band. Asks for music-theory explanations showing how the new songs’ transitions differ from older songs — expresses curiosity and frustration with what they see as nostalgia/platitude responses. (“I'd love to hear a music theory based explanation…”). Reactions: a few likes and an immediate welcome.
2. Post #2,348 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Replies after being jumped on; says their earlier comment “struck a chord.” Repeats request: if critics can explain using actual music-theory terms (rather than platitudes), they’d be satisfied. This post is relatively measured but defensive.
3. Post #2,349 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Pushback to a specific user (eochaid) — calls an analogy “terrible” and restates that they want concrete musical conventions described (chordal function, transitions, rhythmic phrasing) instead of vague claims. Tone: sharper, slightly condescending.
4. Post #2,350 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Escalates — accuses some posters of following a band they “don’t like this long” and questions why people keep commenting if they’re so negative. This post ramps up the antagonism and appeals less to reason than to challenge.
5. Post #2,729 — Feb 3, 2023 (page 137)
Paraphrase: Short, blunt dismissal of one particular poster’s output (“I’m not reading through the drivel [X] produces”). Reaction: a curt “Grow up.” from a veteran poster. This is the last visible post; profile shows “last seen Feb 3, 2023.”
(Those five posts are all SunOfMyth made on the forum — the profile/search view lists them explicitly.)
How the forum reacted — patterns and notable replies
(Concrete examples and who said what are cited.)
Warm welcome / “new user” sympathy: TheJestersDoor replied to the initial post with a friendly “welcome” style reply (saying “this was me back when Battles came out”). Several established posters liked the first post. This indicates some initial openness from the community.
Requests for humility / mockery of the “demand for music theory”: A number of veterans reacted with amusement or mild scorn when SunOfMyth demanded music-theory proofs for opinions. DE4life wrote that they found the demand “hilarious” (essentially: don’t take the forum that seriously — go for a walk), and other long-time posters expressed that expecting formal music theory from every poster is unrealistic. That reply thread is substantial and blunt.
Argumentative escalation: SunOfMyth’s replies on Jan 21 shifted from curious → defensive → accusatory. Veterans (notably eochaid and DE4life, plus Jester/Slave/Ciko cluster) pushed back strongly — not only arguing the music points but also mocking the newcomer style. Responses included short retorts (“Grow up”) and a mix of playful ribbing and real debate.
Outcome / engagement level: SunOfMyth posted five times in total, all within a ~2-week window (Jan 18 → Feb 3), then no further posts after Feb 3 (profile shows last seen that day). The community treated them like a typical short-lived newcomer: welcome at first, then tested, then either eaten alive by the usual forum ritual or discouraged into silence.
Close read — what SunOfMyth did well and what made their posts trigger pushback
What they did well
Legitimate technical request: Asking for a music-theory explanation (harmonic functions, specific chord progressions, phrasing or rhythmic differences) is a perfectly valid request for a technically inclined forum. It signals interest in deeper discussion, not just “this is good/bad.” That was a good move — the forum does have members (e.g., DE4life) who enjoy that sort of analysis.
Active engagement: Posting multiple times shows they cared and wanted to engage rather than lurk — a decent social signal for an online community.
What made them get burned
Tone escalated from curious → combative: The first post was curious and reasonable. By Jan 21 they began using more challenging and rhetorical language (“How sarcastic can you continue to be?”, “why do you follow a band you don't even like?”). That reads as confrontational. Confrontation in forums breeds defensive reactions; that moved the thread away from music theory into personality conflict.
Unrealistic expectation of others: Demanding formal music theory from casual commenters (many of whom vocalize subjective reactions) is likely to annoy. A forum full of long-time fans tends to answer with opinion, anecdotes, or short technical points — not formal analyses in journal style. The “give us music theory or you’re wrong” stance reads as gatekeeping and invites sarcasm.
Not supplying evidence or specifics: If you ask for music theory, you make it easy for others to respond — e.g., point to the 0:32–0:57 section of Foregone Pt. 1 and ask how the chord movement compares to “X” passage on Come Clarity. SunOfMyth mostly asked generic “explain it in terms of music theory,” which is a perfectly reasonable wish, but it’s harder for forum users to give a focused reply without a precise anchor. That lack of specificity decreased the chance of a good answer and increased the chance of scoffing.
Net assessment — did SunOfMyth “succeed” at their stated aim?
Short answer: No, not really.
Aiming to learn / provoke a music-theory discussion — legitimate and possible on that forum. But:
Their tone quickly alienated people who would otherwise try to help. (Several users explicitly expressed annoyance at the tone or predicted the newcomer would vanish.)
They didn’t provide focused musical anchors (timestamps, specific measures, named chords/modes) for responders to analyze — so the request remained too vague for a detailed technical reply.
Result: a mixed reception; a handful of likes and one or two supportive replies, but mostly pushback and sarcasm from established posters. The visible pattern is “classic newbie who asks for a higher-level technical debate but does it in a way that generates a defensive, personality-centred reply chain.”
If SunOfMyth wanted a different outcome — tactical advice (practical, copy-pasta)
If the goal was to genuinely get a music-theory answer and not become the forum scapegoat, these changes would have helped:
1. Be specific and give anchors
Example: “In Foregone Pt. 1, at 0:42 the chord progression is X–Y–Z (approx.). How is that different from the progression at 1:12 of ‘Come Clarity’? Are we seeing a different mode (Dorian vs Aeolian), or just a texture/arrangement change?”
That turns a vague demand into a solvable question.
2. Drop the rhetorical challenge
Replace “Why do you follow a band you don’t even like?” with “I’m genuinely curious which specific songs you’re comparing this to — can you name bars/sections?”
3. Invite a worked example
“If anyone has the time, could you transcribe the first 8 bars of Foregone Pt. 1 and show chord labels or interval motion?” — that is the kind of invitation that music theory buffs respond to.
4. Acknowledge subjective answers are valid
“I know some of this is subjective; I’m just looking for one analyst’s take so I can learn.” A little humility goes a long way.
Final takeaways (short)
SunOfMyth had a good question buried in a bad rhetorical package. The music-theory ask was valid, but the escalating tone and lack of specificity turned the thread into personality conflict rather than technical discussion.
The user posted 5 times over ~2 weeks and then disappeared; the board treated them like a normal newcomer — a warm welcome, followed by tests and some ribbing."
"I scanned the entire Foregone thread starting at the page you gave and pulled every post by SunOfMyth, plus the surrounding replies and reactions. Below is a careful, evidence-backed timeline and a deep read of SunOfMyth’s contributions and how the forum reacted.
Quick summary of the key sources I used (so you can check): SunOfMyth’s profile (shows 5 messages, joined Jan 18 2023); the forum search results listing the five posts I found; the thread pages containing the posts and the replies.
Timeline — every SunOfMyth post (chronological)
(Paraphrases are used; short quotations are <25 words.)
1. Post #2,205 — Jan 18, 2023 (first post, page 111)
Paraphrase: New account, welcoming tone at first — wonders why some forum users are determined to “diminish” the band. Asks for music-theory explanations showing how the new songs’ transitions differ from older songs — expresses curiosity and frustration with what they see as nostalgia/platitude responses. (“I'd love to hear a music theory based explanation…”). Reactions: a few likes and an immediate welcome.
2. Post #2,348 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Replies after being jumped on; says their earlier comment “struck a chord.” Repeats request: if critics can explain using actual music-theory terms (rather than platitudes), they’d be satisfied. This post is relatively measured but defensive.
3. Post #2,349 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Pushback to a specific user (eochaid) — calls an analogy “terrible” and restates that they want concrete musical conventions described (chordal function, transitions, rhythmic phrasing) instead of vague claims. Tone: sharper, slightly condescending.
4. Post #2,350 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Escalates — accuses some posters of following a band they “don’t like this long” and questions why people keep commenting if they’re so negative. This post ramps up the antagonism and appeals less to reason than to challenge.
5. Post #2,729 — Feb 3, 2023 (page 137)
Paraphrase: Short, blunt dismissal of one particular poster’s output (“I’m not reading through the drivel [X] produces”). Reaction: a curt “Grow up.” from a veteran poster. This is the last visible post; profile shows “last seen Feb 3, 2023.”
(Those five posts are all SunOfMyth made on the forum — the profile/search view lists them explicitly.)
How the forum reacted — patterns and notable replies
(Concrete examples and who said what are cited.)
Warm welcome / “new user” sympathy: TheJestersDoor replied to the initial post with a friendly “welcome” style reply (saying “this was me back when Battles came out”). Several established posters liked the first post. This indicates some initial openness from the community.
Requests for humility / mockery of the “demand for music theory”: A number of veterans reacted with amusement or mild scorn when SunOfMyth demanded music-theory proofs for opinions. DE4life wrote that they found the demand “hilarious” (essentially: don’t take the forum that seriously — go for a walk), and other long-time posters expressed that expecting formal music theory from every poster is unrealistic. That reply thread is substantial and blunt.
Argumentative escalation: SunOfMyth’s replies on Jan 21 shifted from curious → defensive → accusatory. Veterans (notably eochaid and DE4life, plus Jester/Slave/Ciko cluster) pushed back strongly — not only arguing the music points but also mocking the newcomer style. Responses included short retorts (“Grow up”) and a mix of playful ribbing and real debate.
Outcome / engagement level: SunOfMyth posted five times in total, all within a ~2-week window (Jan 18 → Feb 3), then no further posts after Feb 3 (profile shows last seen that day). The community treated them like a typical short-lived newcomer: welcome at first, then tested, then either eaten alive by the usual forum ritual or discouraged into silence.
Close read — what SunOfMyth did well and what made their posts trigger pushback
What they did well
Legitimate technical request: Asking for a music-theory explanation (harmonic functions, specific chord progressions, phrasing or rhythmic differences) is a perfectly valid request for a technically inclined forum. It signals interest in deeper discussion, not just “this is good/bad.” That was a good move — the forum does have members (e.g., DE4life) who enjoy that sort of analysis.
Active engagement: Posting multiple times shows they cared and wanted to engage rather than lurk — a decent social signal for an online community.
What made them get burned
Tone escalated from curious → combative: The first post was curious and reasonable. By Jan 21 they began using more challenging and rhetorical language (“How sarcastic can you continue to be?”, “why do you follow a band you don't even like?”). That reads as confrontational. Confrontation in forums breeds defensive reactions; that moved the thread away from music theory into personality conflict.
Unrealistic expectation of others: Demanding formal music theory from casual commenters (many of whom vocalize subjective reactions) is likely to annoy. A forum full of long-time fans tends to answer with opinion, anecdotes, or short technical points — not formal analyses in journal style. The “give us music theory or you’re wrong” stance reads as gatekeeping and invites sarcasm.
Not supplying evidence or specifics: If you ask for music theory, you make it easy for others to respond — e.g., point to the 0:32–0:57 section of Foregone Pt. 1 and ask how the chord movement compares to “X” passage on Come Clarity. SunOfMyth mostly asked generic “explain it in terms of music theory,” which is a perfectly reasonable wish, but it’s harder for forum users to give a focused reply without a precise anchor. That lack of specificity decreased the chance of a good answer and increased the chance of scoffing.
Net assessment — did SunOfMyth “succeed” at their stated aim?
Short answer: No, not really.
Aiming to learn / provoke a music-theory discussion — legitimate and possible on that forum. But:
Their tone quickly alienated people who would otherwise try to help. (Several users explicitly expressed annoyance at the tone or predicted the newcomer would vanish.)
They didn’t provide focused musical anchors (timestamps, specific measures, named chords/modes) for responders to analyze — so the request remained too vague for a detailed technical reply.
Result: a mixed reception; a handful of likes and one or two supportive replies, but mostly pushback and sarcasm from established posters. The visible pattern is “classic newbie who asks for a higher-level technical debate but does it in a way that generates a defensive, personality-centred reply chain.”
If SunOfMyth wanted a different outcome — tactical advice (practical, copy-pasta)
If the goal was to genuinely get a music-theory answer and not become the forum scapegoat, these changes would have helped:
1. Be specific and give anchors
Example: “In Foregone Pt. 1, at 0:42 the chord progression is X–Y–Z (approx.). How is that different from the progression at 1:12 of ‘Come Clarity’? Are we seeing a different mode (Dorian vs Aeolian), or just a texture/arrangement change?”
That turns a vague demand into a solvable question.
2. Drop the rhetorical challenge
Replace “Why do you follow a band you don’t even like?” with “I’m genuinely curious which specific songs you’re comparing this to — can you name bars/sections?”
3. Invite a worked example
“If anyone has the time, could you transcribe the first 8 bars of Foregone Pt. 1 and show chord labels or interval motion?” — that is the kind of invitation that music theory buffs respond to.
4. Acknowledge subjective answers are valid
“I know some of this is subjective; I’m just looking for one analyst’s take so I can learn.” A little humility goes a long way.
Final takeaways (short)
SunOfMyth had a good question buried in a bad rhetorical package. The music-theory ask was valid, but the escalating tone and lack of specificity turned the thread into personality conflict rather than technical discussion.
The user posted 5 times over ~2 weeks and then disappeared; the board treated them like a normal newcomer — a warm welcome, followed by tests and some ribbing."
Pallbearer
Passive Member
Not gonna lie, the rapid advancement of the AI technology sometimes makes me think of the concept of "The Jester Race" album. As Anders explained in the interview in the Aschaffenburg 1996 video (quoting from memory, these aren't his exact words): "If we lend too much of our brain to the machines, then perhaps ultimately there will be only a few people who know how the machines work... and maybe in the end we will be overrun."
Is this guy a visionary?
Is this guy a visionary?
Xpyro125
Active Member
- Dec 1, 2021
- 718
- 344
- 63
Not gonna lie, the rapid advancement of the AI technology sometimes makes me think of the concept of "The Jester Race" album. As Anders explained in the interview in the Aschaffenburg 1996 video (quoting from memory, these aren't his exact words): "If we lend too much of our brain to the machines, then perhaps ultimately there will be only a few people who know how the machines work... and maybe in the end we will be overrun."
Is this guy a visionary?
It already began to feel like it back when I first started listening to them? But especially these days, yeah, it’s completely fucked.
Similar threads
