Rob Chapman gets death threats?

Fretwired

soma1975 said:

The golden age of Youtube has passed too frankly, even if that isn't apparent to the end user yet. It's much more a marketing platform than it ever was and that is only increasing. And unregulated advertising pretending to be something impartial is bloody terrible. 

I disagree. I tend to subscribe to channels I'm interested in and don't bother with all the crud. For example, I have recently taken up photography and learned more in a week watching informative videos from some top photographers around the world than I could ever have done from reading a book or my camera's manual.

soma1975

How many of those photography channels have endorsements and sponsorships or are 'reviewing' kit they were given compensation to push? That's certainly been my experience of it. 

That doesn't mean there is nothing worth learning there. Quite the opposite and it is still a wonderful resource. However, it means the model has changed and will continue to change.  

An obvious example

https://thomasheaton.co.uk/work-with-me/

DanR

Just think of them as product demonstrations as opposed to reviews.

Three-ColourSunburst

soma1975 said:

For someone who will never watch either video, what is the gist of the complaint video and what was the catalyst for the death threats?

The 'death threats' were nothing to do with this KDH character. Seems Chapman just took umbrage at being criticised by 'KDH' and then in his response tried to play the sympathy card by referring to something Levi Clay said almost 5 years ago - which wasn't actually a death threat at all. (Although someone else may well have once threatened to stab his dog or something.)

I took a quick look at KDH's other jibe at Glenn Fricker and most of it seems to be fair comment, so perhaps what he says has some merit, whatever its motivation. (Then again, we already know that practically every YouTube guitar channel that supposedly offers 'unbiased' gear reviews are either bought-and-paid-for endorsements or straight up advertisements, with the personas of the presenters being carefully cultivated to encourage viewers to regard the salesmen as being their ideal best mate, rather than someone hoping to empty their wallets!)

Unfortunately, the 'YouTube Guitar Community' does seem to be rife with unnecessarily vindictive spats such as this. (Will Gelvin vs Owen Gibbins / 'The Circle of Tone', Scott Grove, DKJCustom etc.) Perhaps there are just too many large but fragile egos bumping into each other. 

soma1975

DanR said:

Just think of them as product demonstrations as opposed to reviews.

Just state they are product demonstrations instead of reviews. 

gibsongretschfan

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

ten77guitar said:

gibsongretschfan said:

Yes, I would suggest that if counter terrorism police investigating the most high profile political murder of a generation didn’t find any death threats that it would high unlikely there were any

I can’t concede a counter to a point I’ve never made- Hence why I called it a straw man

Okay I’ll concede your first point - let’s assume none were made.

Your argument, if I’m not mistaken, is that Labour MPs used death threats against them for political gain. You’re implying that the death threats weren’t credible so they should have just ignored them. Correct?

I’m saying the fact that one of their colleagues was recently murdered by someone with links to the far right means that they should take every threat against them seriously. How are they to know which ones are credible or not? If the threats weren’t serious the police wouldn’t be arresting people and locking them up.

Also, it wasn’t just Labour MPs complaining about the harassment they get on a daily basis. It happens to MPs from all parties.

My point was that there seems to be a large swathe of public persons using benign online threats (the statistics bear out this benignity) which are then blown out of proportion and used as a platform that performs a variety of functions such as to deflect criticism or to use as social currency when attempting to achieve  moral superiority such as with my example of using the Labour party’s recent behaviour in the House of Commons


Ps. I don’t have any political preference and was only using the Labour party’s recent behaviour as an example of what I believe to be the wrong way to deal with online threats. 

I understand your point. You’re just wrong. Sorry.

MPs are guilty of many things and they should be held to account for what they do and say. They should accept the job will involve harsh criticism, scrutiny of every aspect of their lives, getting the piss taken out of them etc. It’s what comes with the power and responsibility they have.

What they shouldn’t have to face are threats of violence and intimidation. Ever. 

The threats are credible because there are people out there who actually do want to kill them. I doubt the same is true of Rob Chapman.

Thats the last thing I’m saying about it.

Again, this is a straw man argument- You’ve now proposed that I have said that they should have to deal with threats

I have not once said this. I said I didn’t agree with how certain MP’s dealt with them.

You then go on to counter this imaginary stance you have created for me, one that I didn’t champion and that is almost impossible to defend, and claim some form of victory. 

Ironically, it’s the same tactics that the particular batch of politicians I have highlighted use to such ill-effect 

This is simply the lowest form of discussion 

tony99

digitalscream said:

Fast forward a few years, and a luthier - who was pretty well-respected up to that point - threatens to be "over like a shot" to my house, having found my address.

I wish more luthiers were that customer focused to be honest, I've got  a stuck truss rod on my partscaster and trying to get someone over at christmas has been a nightmare.

mburekenge

Everything doesn't have to be so polarised. 

Personally, i can't stand Chappers content or the Top Gear of shredding vibe at all.

I'm not jealous 'if you don't like it you must be jealous'. That is very binary thinking.

I find the playing average and not in my wheelhouse, the actual product knowledge wafer thin and the 'humor' really grating. I'm allowed to have that opinion.

It's not to my personal taste, however, it is to many people other than me so fair play.

He's worked at his business, knows the market and has made something of himself. For that he gets my respect.

I don't 'hate' chappers, i just avoid him.

People who get wound up enough about video content to post death threats obviously have mental health issues.

Just because something is guitar related doesnt mean you have to love it. I just avoid stuff that winds me up and enjoy the countless anazing things out there!

Creed_Clicks

LastMantra said:

Who? 

You could have googled his name which would have taken slightly longer than it did to type “who?”....

HAL9000

Case of it being easier to criticise someone else's success than to examine the reasons for your own failure.

Fretwired

soma1975 said:

How many of those photography channels have endorsements and sponsorships or are 'reviewing' kit they were given compensation to push? That's certainly been my experience of it. 

That doesn't mean there is nothing worth learning there. Quite the opposite and it is still a wonderful resource. However, it means the model has changed and will continue to change.  

An obvious example

https://thomasheaton.co.uk/work-with-me/

None. The guys I follow bought the gear. Sometimes with high-end lenses they admit they borrowed them but they are not being paid to demo them (I'm not going to spend £2K on a lens so I don't care). You can tell as their reviews are never gushing. There are pros and cons and they explain what a lens is good for .. in truth, I'm not interested in gear demos. It's more technique and understanding how to get the most from your gear. All the guys I follow are pro photographers who make a living from taking pics as opposed to amateurs trying to make money from doing paid-for gear demos.

Fretwired

Three-ColourSunburst said:

soma1975 said:

For someone who will never watch either video, what is the gist of the complaint video and what was the catalyst for the death threats?

Unfortunately, the 'YouTube Guitar Community' does seem to be rife with unnecessarily vindictive spats such as this. (Will Gelvin vs Owen Gibbins / 'The Circle of Tone', Scott Grove, DKJCustom etc.) Perhaps there are just too many large but fragile egos bumping into each other. 

I do wonder whether some of it is deliberate clickbait to generate likes and traffic. And I wonder whether there is some collusion between the parties who accuse each other of misdemeanors .. there's a lot of money to be made online these days.

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

soma1975 said:

For someone who will never watch either video, what is the gist of the complaint video and what was the catalyst for the death threats?

Unfortunately, the 'YouTube Guitar Community' does seem to be rife with unnecessarily vindictive spats such as this. (Will Gelvin vs Owen Gibbins / 'The Circle of Tone', Scott Grove, DKJCustom etc.) Perhaps there are just too many large but fragile egos bumping into each other. 

I do wonder whether some of it is deliberate clickbait to generate likes and traffic. And I wonder whether there is some collusion between the parties who accuse each other of misdemeanors .. there's a lot of money to be made online these days.

It's always deliberate clickbait, because people are idiots and love to watch drama (I regard it as the same reason people watch Eastenders).

I haven't seen any collusion in the guitar community, but it's certainly been done in the fashion world; it can be ludicrously lucrative there. In fact, that's probably why it doesn't happen often in the guitar community....not enough money to be made to justify the potential damage to reputations.

soma1975

Fretwired said:

soma1975 said:

How many of those photography channels have endorsements and sponsorships or are 'reviewing' kit they were given compensation to push? That's certainly been my experience of it. 

That doesn't mean there is nothing worth learning there. Quite the opposite and it is still a wonderful resource. However, it means the model has changed and will continue to change.  

An obvious example

https://thomasheaton.co.uk/work-with-me/

None. The guys I follow bought the gear. Sometimes with high-end lenses they admit they borrowed them but they are not being paid to demo them (I'm not going to spend £2K on a lens so I don't care). You can tell as their reviews are never gushing. There are pros and cons and they explain what a lens is good for .. in truth, I'm not interested in gear demos. It's more technique and understanding how to get the most from your gear. All the guys I follow are pro photographers who make a living from taking pics as opposed to amateurs trying to make money from doing paid-for gear demos.

Who are you talking about? 

hollywoodrox

Grangousier said:

No? Oh. 

*Sadly puts his deely-boppers away in a drawer.*

Don’t be too hasty, I’m still living in the mid to late 80s and early 90s and it’s very nice apart from thatcher, tebbit maxwell etc

robgilmo

soma1975 said:

DanR said:

Just think of them as product demonstrations as opposed to reviews.

Just state they are product demonstrations instead of reviews. 

Even reviews can be a bit biased, basically a review is someones opinion on something, the best review you can have is the one you do yourself. I tend to look at reviews but I wouldn't take them as gospel and although they might push be in one direction or the other its still a bit hit and miss. Pedal reviews for instance, one mans meat and all that. I did buy a Canon 200D and was swayed by all the raving reviews it had, I sent it back and ended up with an 800D instead, I remember seeing a review on it saying it wasn't that great, but it still ticked all my boxes.


Perhaps we should review people who review things?

Jetfire

Levi has a very strong personality and has waded in on a few current affairs, which is he perogative to do so. My concern is the following:

Levi claiming the threats Robs received were from him may be completely wrong. It seems he wanted to legitimately wade into this debate and this was his way of making it legit. Telling someone to go and die is not a threat as he says, so to me it seems like he's twisting Robs words to suit his needs. 

Saying he doesn't want to be remembered for rant videos.... And then makes one more? If he really does not want to be remembered for them, then in my opinion, delete them all and stop doing them. However, I think his other content is really good, he's got lots of great videos and is much more than a one trick pony. 

I watched all three of these videos and it's really interesting as all three have valid points. The accounts thing in the video only show a small snap shot of the business at that one time so cant be fully representative of his business at that time. 

Finally, did anyone else notice a massive drop in Robs December YouTube subscribers? Or have I read that wrong?

soma1975

robgilmo said:

soma1975 said:

DanR said:

Just think of them as product demonstrations as opposed to reviews.

Just state they are product demonstrations instead of reviews. 

Even reviews can be a bit biased, basically a review is someones opinion on something, the best review you can have is the one you do yourself. I tend to look at reviews but I wouldn't take them as gospel and although they might push be in one direction or the other its still a bit hit and miss. Pedal reviews for instance, one mans meat and all that. I did buy a Canon 200D and was swayed by all the raving reviews it had, I sent it back and ended up with an 800D instead, I remember seeing a review on it saying it wasn't that great, but it still ticked all my boxes.


Perhaps we should review people who review things?

Of course absolutely there is bias from a reviewer. That's a positive not a negative, and why you find people you trust or where you understand their bias and either agree with it or account for it in your evaluation. 

For example, I think 90% of people producing video tutorials and video gear reviews on youtube have not got a clue what they are talking about and have never been involved in a professional production outside their bedrooms. But I'll watch a review to get out of it what I need to. Unless the video is shittily made in which case this person has nothing to tell or show me about video production equipment. 

robgilmo

Jetfire said:

Levi has a very strong personality and has waded in on a few current affairs, which is he perogative to do so. My concern is the following:

Levi claiming the threats Robs received were from him may be completely wrong. It seems he wanted to legitimately wade into this debate and this was his way of making it legit. Telling someone to go and die is not a threat as he says, so to me it seems like he's twisting Robs words to suit his needs. 

Saying he doesn't want to be remembered for rant videos.... And then makes one more? If he really does not want to be remembered for them, then in my opinion, delete them all and stop doing them. However, I think his other content is really good, he's got lots of great videos and is much more than a one trick pony. 

I watched all three of these videos and it's really interesting as all three have valid points. The accounts thing in the video only show a small snap shot of the business at that one time so cant be fully representative of his business at that time. 

Finally, did anyone else notice a massive drop in Robs December YouTube subscribers? Or have I read that wrong?

I dont think grown men acting like little girls throwing hissy fits on the internet in view of anyone and everyone is making a valid point?

A valid point may be saying ''Im a little to old for this type of nonsense and would rather not make an immature fool out of myself by participating''. 

digitalscream

@Jetfire - looking on SocialBlade, I can only see a 1k drop on 3rd December, which is about a 0.1% drop.