How did Matt get the title od Doctor?

[LyraSilvertongue]

Yes, I think so too.

 

My thesis was a bit over two years intensive work. In calendar time it was more, about four and half years, due to the time for the instructor and opponents to read the stuff, plus some holidays and breaks etc. That's consistent with those 3-5 years Carrie mentioned.

 

That is more than creating one album, but Muse didn't get their degree for one album but four plus a lot of touring. And I think they have to consider details with painful accuracy - remember that Australian interview (the one where the female interviewer didn't know much of the band and Matt started playing with the microphone and interviewing the interviewer) where the radio station played Uprising and Matt commented on that expensive synthetisizor (spell check anyone?) that made one sound at the end of the song? I don't know about others but I had never even noticed that detail. I might have noticed if I heard a version where it was missing, but otherwise it just disappears within other sounds. Plus, like with any kind of creating work, they probably do a lot of work to get somewhere and at the end they don't publish it.

 

They definitely worked hard in the early days, with the constant touring as well as writing amazing albums.

I can't remember the name of that instrument but I know the one you mean. The one they've been trying to use because it was so expensive but it made about 5 seconds on The Resistance

[CarrieB]

Well I don't know about a doctorate only studying for an undergraduate degree, but that's hard enough and it's just mind boggling looking at the amount of references in doctorates. I also, of course, don't know what it's like to be a successful musician.

 

I'm sure Muse have worked extremely hard but I imagine it to be a different kind of work. More using your own intuition than having to back everything up by lots of reading and countless references to others. I doubt that Muse have to qualify what they do, they just take a risk and hope for the best and they have a natural inclination to do well as they are talented.

 

I'm pretty sure it is just as stressful however, having you're mind on the outcome and not knowing if you are going to be successful. That must be a huge pressure but, I don't know, there's probably a bit more freedom.

 

Really I suppose it's a pointless discussion though as none of us actually know.

[Kati]

I'm sure Muse have worked extremely hard but I imagine it to be a different kind of work. More using your own intuition than having to back everything up by lots of reading and countless references to others. I doubt that Muse have to qualify what they do, they just take a risk and hope for the best and they have a natural inclination to do well as they are talented.

 

Aren't you studying something like sociology, i.e. not an exact science? I think there's more work with reading and referencing in such sciences. My field has more freedom, it is about modelling some existing phenomenon, and the result should of course correspond to reality but you have all the creative freedom to create a simple genious model that only contains important things and nothing else (yeah, so easy )

 

But I think you are right in saying that Muse (or any artist, I suppose) don't have to qualify their work, unless you count comparisons to existing music as such. They seem to be aware of what is happening in their field, they know other bands and they are influenced by other bands. And they do get sort of peer reviews - tbh I find the reviews in the music world very harsh, in science you are relatively politely told that you should improve this or that but no one says you aren't even worth the mushrooms you like (there was one early review which said Matt isn't even worth to be given any mushrooms ).

 

I'm pretty sure it is just as stressful however, having you're mind on the outcome and not knowing if you are going to be successful. That must be a huge pressure but, I don't know, there's probably a bit more freedom.

 

Sometimes I wonder how the heck the composers create enjoyable music out of nowhere. A scientist is given a problem and the desired outcome is clearly defined - it's not like in music where the only requirement is that people should like it. Or actually not even that, I can hardly find Kid-A enjoyable and I bet many others would agree, but still the critics praised it. I wouldn't enjoy that freedom myself.

 

Really I suppose it's a pointless discussion though as none of us actually know.

 

Oh come on, how many topics for discussion do we have at the moment? I think it's difficult to find a rock musician with academic doctorate degree to definitely solve the problem

[CarrieB]

My original comment wasn't really thought out, I just made it after a couple of drinks (where have I heard that before? ) but you're making me think about it now Kati and you're right, I'm not comparing like with like. I don't know what is involved for a doctorate in music. Also if a doctorate was based on hard work alone you could get one from working long hours in Tesco, but obviously there's a lot more to it than that and I would say you are more likely to be successful in both if you have acumen. We also don't know how much work is involved, I think creating an album can be very intensive, depending on what you want to achieve and your level of experience in what you are doing. Matt has said he found creating Exogenesis very intensive and he does work through the night at times.

 

In the kind of study I'm doing, acumen isn't enough, you have to back everything up, evidence it with other people's ideas and your own and other people's research, for good reason, otherwise anyone could spout out anything and it would be a complete mess! But it does make it very time consuming and mind boggling when you look at reference lists for doctorates. Mind you maybe that's because we have a few weeks (which invariable ends up about three days ) to explore what takes them months or is even someone's life's work. The idea of having to read about 50 books to present a paper which has any level authority is rather stress inducing.

 

What you say, doesn't necessarily have to be popular if it's backed up, (thought that is debateable). There's this guy who's been banned from America, because they don't like his views which are basically Marxist, and you should see the slagging off someone has given him, insulting his crudentials, the publisher of his book etc! A book which I personally found quite enlightening in some ways! Though, going off topic, basically socialist and humanitarian ideas appear to be the most prominent, from my experience, for good reason I think. Reviews are also often full of barbed, bitchy comments. I suppose it is because it's not an exact science like you say, though exact sciences also have their problems. I believe there is always an underlying reality, even in social science, but finding it is by no means foolproof in any science.

 

I am sure that as a musician you also benefit from exposure to previous music and from geek deep knowledge. There is structure, in music, there's only so many notes, chords, ways it can be put together to sound good. you can't just play anything or it would be a complete mess. Which I think is why Muse are always trying to find new ways to perform it, through using new technology etc. But there's more, there's what I've called acumen, which I suppose is more of a gift when it comes to musical creativity. Matt has said he thinks his musical ideas come to him from some outside force. That is his creativity. I understand what he means. I don't know whether it is from somewhere else or just from a million forgotten experiences, I wonder what creativity is. But I'm rambling now.

 

In any case maybe they do deserve their doctorates after all.

[cherry lips]

My original comment wasn't really thought out, I just made it after a couple of drinks (where have I heard that before? ) but you're making me think about it now Kati and you're right, I'm not comparing like with like. I don't know what is involved for a doctorate in music. Also if a doctorate was based on hard work alone you could get one from working long hours in Tesco, but obviously there's a lot more to it than that and I would say you are more likely to be successful in both if you have acumen. We also don't know how much work is involved, I think creating an album can be very intensive, depending on what you want to achieve and your level of experience in what you are doing. Matt has said he found creating Exogenesis very intensive and he does work through the night at times.

 

In the kind of study I'm doing, acumen isn't enough, you have to back everything up, evidence it with other people's ideas and your own and other people's research, for good reason, otherwise anyone could spout out anything and it would be a complete mess! But it does make it very time consuming and mind boggling when you look at reference lists for doctorates. Mind you maybe that's because we have a few weeks (which invariable ends up about three days ) to explore what takes them months or is even someone's life's work. The idea of having to read about 50 books to present a paper which has any level authority is rather stress inducing.

 

What you say, doesn't necessarily have to be popular if it's backed up, (thought that is debateable). There's this guy who's been banned from America, because they don't like his views which are basically Marxist, and you should see the slagging off someone has given him, insulting his crudentials, the publisher of his book etc! A book which I personally found quite enlightening in some ways! Though, going off topic, basically socialist and humanitarian ideas appear to be the most prominent, from my experience, for good reason I think. Reviews are also often full of barbed, bitchy comments. I suppose it is because it's not an exact science like you say, though exact sciences also have their problems. I believe there is always an underlying reality, even in social science, but finding it is by no means foolproof in any science.

 

I am sure that as a musician you also benefit from exposure to previous music and from geek deep knowledge. There is structure, in music, there's only so many notes, chords, ways it can be put together to sound good. you can't just play anything or it would be a complete mess. Which I think is why Muse are always trying to find new ways to perform it, through using new technology etc. But there's more, there's what I've called acumen, which I suppose is more of a gift when it comes to musical creativity. Matt has said he thinks his musical ideas come to him from some outside force. That is his creativity. I understand what he means. I don't know whether it is from somewhere else or just from a million forgotten experiences, I wonder what creativity is. But I'm rambling now.

 

In any case maybe they do deserve their doctorates after all.

 

Too long post is too long.

[Hat]

Too long post is too long.

You don't HAVE to read it.

[Lupus]

Although I agree with many of the statements, and I don't know how Muse's work and others who have Doctorates compare, I think that if Matt says they don't really deserve it, then they probably don't. It's not like they've put out ten genius albums, been at the job for twenty something years or anything like that, and they go "Finally!". The first thing that caught my attention was that the time span was cutting it close. It takes usually at least ten years of study (after high school) to get that title, and Muse have only just covered that... And they weren't creating music for ten years... they have been touring with some of it as well, which is not to say easy, but not the same comparison at all. I respect the guys as musicians, but especially when it was probably given for publicity, it doesn't mean much, and I think that's where the band is coming from too.

[Kati]

My original comment wasn't really thought out, I just made it after a couple of drinks (where have I heard that before? ) but you're making me think about it now Kati and you're right, I'm not comparing like with like. I don't know what is involved for a doctorate in music. Also if a doctorate was based on hard work alone you could get one from working long hours in Tesco, but obviously there's a lot more to it than that and I would say you are more likely to be successful in both if you have acumen. We also don't know how much work is involved, I think creating an album can be very intensive, depending on what you want to achieve and your level of experience in what you are doing. Matt has said he found creating Exogenesis very intensive and he does work through the night at times.

 

In the kind of study I'm doing, acumen isn't enough, you have to back everything up, evidence it with other people's ideas and your own and other people's research, for good reason, otherwise anyone could spout out anything and it would be a complete mess! But it does make it very time consuming and mind boggling when you look at reference lists for doctorates. Mind you maybe that's because we have a few weeks (which invariable ends up about three days ) to explore what takes them months or is even someone's life's work. The idea of having to read about 50 books to present a paper which has any level authority is rather stress inducing.

 

Hmm, your after-a-couple-of-drinks-post made more sense to me (sorry!) I'm trying to understand what you mean... Well one comment is that indeed as scientific fields yours and mine are different. Don't you do anything like interviews or statistical studies etc? I thought social sciences do such things too, although obviously any sort of verification of hypothesis is much more difficult than in engineering sciences. But we have to do that too, and anything you select as submodel or a basis in your tests has to be argued with references. So I guess the basic approach is the same, you present a new idea and verify that.

 

What you say, doesn't necessarily have to be popular if it's backed up, (thought that is debateable). There's this guy who's been banned from America, because they don't like his views which are basically Marxist, and you should see the slagging off someone has given him, insulting his crudentials, the publisher of his book etc! A book which I personally found quite enlightening in some ways! Though, going off topic, basically socialist and humanitarian ideas appear to be the most prominent, from my experience, for good reason I think. Reviews are also often full of barbed, bitchy comments. I suppose it is because it's not an exact science like you say, though exact sciences also have their problems. I believe there is always an underlying reality, even in social science, but finding it is by no means foolproof in any science.

 

Okay this was new to me. My field is in no way interesting to general public. It contains really nothing on which anyone could form a political opinion, and I think that is the reason why the reviews are usually gentle. I guess the social sciences are different then and can induce emotional responses (like "this is not true because I don't think so"). Yes, all sciences have problems when it comes to verification and peer reviews, I think a good example on this is the climate change research (I don't have an opinion on that, btw - it seems all very complicated and basically political decisions have to be made based on insufficient information).

 

I am sure that as a musician you also benefit from exposure to previous music and from geek deep knowledge. There is structure, in music, there's only so many notes, chords, ways it can be put together to sound good. you can't just play anything or it would be a complete mess. Which I think is why Muse are always trying to find new ways to perform it, through using new technology etc. But there's more, there's what I've called acumen, which I suppose is more of a gift when it comes to musical creativity. Matt has said he thinks his musical ideas come to him from some outside force. That is his creativity. I understand what he means. I don't know whether it is from somewhere else or just from a million forgotten experiences, I wonder what creativity is. But I'm rambling now.

 

Okay, my comments about music an the honorary degree for Muse: I think you are talking simply about basic music skills here. They have to know how to play their instruments to be able to create music. Scientist also have to know their basics, in my case mathematics and programming, to be able to do their work. And just the basic skills do not provide creative result, neither does large amount of work. You need this "acumen" (I had to check it in dictionary and I can only hope I understood correctly) to get anywhere. But you do need that also in scientific work - actually for me the process went so that I got an idea and only after running tests on it an writing initial reports I checked what others had done, and had to invent explanations on why I didn't do something similar I really don't see how the process would be different in creating music. It's only that verification part that is missing. Plus the initial state is very different, as I said earlier.

 

Catching the essence of creativity is quite difficult. I've had a couple of creative moments (unfortunately not many and those I had several years ago ), and that was typically after thinking a problem hard, checking several options in my mind and from somewhere then getting around something I couldn't find counterarguments to. The thing I don't understand in creating music is that they don't have that problem to think hard about And I don't understand what Matt means!

 

In any case maybe they do deserve their doctorates after all.

 

I don't quite see how you got into the conclusion but fine

 

Although I agree with many of the statements, and I don't know how Muse's work and others who have Doctorates compare, I think that if Matt says they don't really deserve it, then they probably don't. It's not like they've put out ten genius albums, been at the job for twenty something years or anything like that, and they go "Finally!". The first thing that caught my attention was that the time span was cutting it close. It takes usually at least ten years of study (after high school) to get that title, and Muse have only just covered that... And they weren't creating music for ten years... they have been touring with some of it as well, which is not to say easy, but not the same comparison at all. I respect the guys as musicians, but especially when it was probably given for publicity, it doesn't mean much, and I think that's where the band is coming from too.

 

Haven't you heard that Matt isn't very reliable source on anything? No I don't quite agree with him on this. First, honorary degree is not even meant to be the same as substantive degree (check the Wikipedia btw, I did). It can be granted for person's contributions to the society in general. In technical field for example it might be given for industry managers (who have not run their company into bankruptcy ) inventors etc. Oh, according to Wikipedia a Dr. h.c. can use the title of doctor... I think it is generally regarded as, umm, daft or something, though (*). Second, they certainly have created distinctive music which has had impact on the people listening to it. Maybe all bands creating memorable music deserve such degrees... It's not so far fetched as it may sound, quite many adademic doctor's theses have no real impact even on that specific field, not to mention the society in general. Third, (as a comment also to Carrie's text) I'm not quite sure how the scientific principles fit music. I guess there are substantive doctors also in the field of music, but how do they "verify" anything and what kind of hypotheses can they make?

 

As to summarise and to clarify also to myself what I've been thinking about this: Basically I don't respect academic doctor's degree any higher than the work Muse does. I've seen academic work, done it myself, and really I think the music Muse creates has more significance, impact and meaning than a lot of scientific work. There is of course scientific work that does have much more impact, meaning etc than their music, but it is rare. Therefore I don't accept the view that they wouldn't have deserved their honorary degree.

 

Edit:(*) I guess quite often the persons getting the honorary degree do not need to use the title. They either have the Dr. title from somewhere else or are otherwise in such a way acknowledged that they don't need the title.

[ArtsyChick]

A simple question leads to a conversation that proves people on this board do take the work of the band seriously.

 

I hope that on the chance occasion they check in here, they see this, and not something like the Great Hair Color Debate.

[CarrieB]

Hmm, your after-a-couple-of-drinks-post made more sense to me (sorry!) I'm trying to understand what you mean... Well one comment is that indeed as scientific fields yours and mine are different. Don't you do anything like interviews or statistical studies etc? I thought social sciences do such things too, although obviously any sort of verification of hypothesis is much more difficult than in engineering sciences. But we have to do that too, and anything you select as submodel or a basis in your tests has to be argued with references. So I guess the basic approach is the same, you present a new idea and verify that.

 

Oh sorry I had forgotten what had already been said and I was thinking aloud really. I'm not going to pretend I really understand your research either, but in the social sciences, whereas the method which involves testing a hypothesis and coming up with information which is then considered factual, is still used, particularly in psychology, there is now quite a lot of criticism of it's value in social research so qualitative research is becoming more popular which is subjective and based on the idea that everything is an interpretation, we cannot claim to know things.

 

The idea is that there is still a reality to be known, but to research it in a way which involves immersing yourself rather than attempting to detach yourself, because it is impossible to be fully objective in any case. In that way it is more creative. So yes, interviews are used, but if you get to a certain level then the research is also likely to involve living amongst the people you are researching so you learn about their lives through experience, and of course you may be researching the society you live in yourself. But saying that, you are still then supposed to relate it all to other people's concepts and the stuff they have written is often very deep. The creative side is though, I suppose, a bit like being a writer, rather than a scientist and I'm wondering whether it can be learned or whether you need a certain amount of creative ability in the first place, so that is where I was trying to make comparisons. Basically thinking there are similarities in that there is a creative process obviously in being a musical artist, but without the need to back it up which means there may be less work involved. But maybe what's really important in handing out awards is the level of ability rather than the work.

 

I don't know whether that makes any sense. I'm still in the process of trying to get my own head round it all tbh! The study I'm in the process of doing I mean.

 

Editing to add that of course then there's the work actually turning musical ideas into something concrete, which may be just as time consuming and stressful as searching for a way to make sense of analysis and turn it into a report.

 

Okay, my comments about music an the honorary degree for Muse: I think you are talking simply about basic music skills here. They have to know how to play their instruments to be able to create music. Scientist also have to know their basics, in my case mathematics and programming, to be able to do their work. And just the basic skills do not provide creative result, neither does large amount of work. You need this "acumen" (I had to check it in dictionary and I can only hope I understood correctly) to get anywhere. But you do need that also in scientific work - actually for me the process went so that I got an idea and only after running tests on it an writing initial reports I checked what others had done, and had to invent explanations on why I didn't do something similar I really don't see how the process would be different in creating music. It's only that verification part that is missing. Plus the initial state is very different, as I said earlier.

 

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, I think with all sciences there is creativity involved. I presume using maths you can claim that the facts are the facts, because anyone running the same tests will produce the same results, but you still have to use your imagination to come up with the idea of what to test and think about what you want to achieve, and what I was talking about in relation to a musician was writing music as well as playing the instruments to create it. Maybe I'm talking rubbish but I presume that there are structures in music which means that someone can be taught to write it, but they may well not do it very well unless they have the imagination and creativity to make something great out of it.

 

Catching the essence of creativity is quite difficult. I've had a couple of creative moments (unfortunately not many and those I had several years ago ), and that was typically after thinking a problem hard, checking several options in my mind and from somewhere then getting around something I couldn't find counterarguments to. The thing I don't understand in creating music is that they don't have that problem to think hard about And I don't understand what Matt means!

 

I don't know whether you have to go through a deliberate process of thinking hard to be creative, it's possible that if you are naturally a deep thinker which Matt is, the creativity happens automatically. He does talk about being more creative in certain situations, and he talks about self examination and of course he also appears to do a lot of thinking about stuff that is going on in the world and space, and the meaning of life and all kinds of stuff. So I think you are probably right in describing how it happens.

 

I don't know whether Matt thinks in music but perhaps when he tinkers around on the piano, he converts his thoughts and emotions into music or maybe he does that in his head, but I think the process of getting there may be similar, and I think what he means when he has spoken about it coming from outside, is that he doesn't know how he has thought of it, how it comes into his head, so he thinks there may be something outside of himself putting it there which is perfectly possible, and I've had the same thought myself, before I heard him mention it, which is why I think I understand what he means, but it also might be from his own previous experience and something he has forgotten. It's nice to think though that creativity results from something outside, I think. There is some hope in that.

 

 

Haven't you heard that Matt isn't very reliable source on anything? No I don't quite agree with him on this. First, honorary degree is not even meant to be the same as substantive degree (check the Wikipedia btw, I did). It can be granted for person's contributions to the society in general. In technical field for example it might be given for industry managers (who have not run their company into bankruptcy ) inventors etc. Oh, according to Wikipedia a Dr. h.c. can use the title of doctor... I think it is generally regarded as, umm, daft or something, though (*). Second, they certainly have created distinctive music which has had impact on the people listening to it. Maybe all bands creating memorable music deserve such degrees... It's not so far fetched as it may sound, quite many adademic doctor's theses have no real impact even on that specific field, not to mention the society in general. Third, (as a comment also to Carrie's text) I'm not quite sure how the scientific principles fit music. I guess there are substantive doctors also in the field of music, but how do they "verify" anything and what kind of hypotheses can they make?

 

As to summarise and to clarify also to myself what I've been thinking about this: Basically I don't respect academic doctor's degree any higher than the work Muse does. I've seen academic work, done it myself, and really I think the music Muse creates has more significance, impact and meaning than a lot of scientific work. There is of course scientific work that does have much more impact, meaning etc than their music, but it is rare. Therefore I don't accept the view that they wouldn't have deserved their honorary degree.

 

Edit:(*) I guess quite often the persons getting the honorary degree do not need to use the title. They either have the Dr. title from somewhere else or are otherwise in such a way acknowledged that they don't need the title.

 

I see Matt as simply being modest when he said he didn't feel they deserved it but I understand why they were embarrassed about it. It does seem a bit pointless awarding something comparible to a doctorate to people who haven't gone through the same process as everyone else in achieving it.

 

I suppose what I was originally saying was that what they have achieved is different to a doctorate, not that what they have achieved or contributed is inferior. Blimey! Far from it! But then after your post, I've been trying to think it through.

 

I expect you are right that they have indeed contributed a lot more than a lot of people with doctorates, I agree!

 

Right back to the great hair colour debate! Nah!

[Kati]

Oh sorry I had forgotten what had already been said and I was thinking aloud really. I'm not going to pretend I really understand your research either, but in the social sciences, whereas the method which involves testing a hypothesis and coming up with information which is then considered factual, is still used, particularly in psychology, there is now quite a lot of criticism of it's value in social research so qualitative research is becoming more popular which is subjective and based on the idea that everything is an interpretation, we cannot claim to know things.

 

Thanks. This clears it up, I have no idea what this new principle means in practise but it does make sense somehow. I'm not going to quote everything you wrote on this, it gets too long...

 

I don't know whether you have to go through a deliberate process of thinking hard to be creative, it's possible that if you are naturally a deep thinker which Matt is, the creativity happens automatically. He does talk about being more creative in certain situations, and he talks about self examination and of course he also appears to do a lot of thinking about stuff that is going on in the world and space, and the meaning of life and all kinds of stuff. So I think you are probably right in describing how it happens.

 

I don't know whether Matt thinks in music but perhaps when he tinkers around on the piano, he converts his thoughts and emotions into music or maybe he does that in his head, but I think the process of getting there may be similar, and I think what he means when he has spoken about it coming from outside, is that he doesn't know how he has thought of it, how it comes into his head, so he thinks there may be something outside of himself putting it there which is perfectly possible, and I've had the same thought myself, before I heard him mention it, which is why I think I understand what he means, but it also might be from his own previous experience and something he has forgotten. It's nice to think though that creativity results from something outside, I think. There is some hope in that. :happy

 

I mostly agree, but I don't quite get the last bit. Why should it give hope that good ideas come from outside? I think it is perfectly possible that they come from someone's mind. That's what creativity is, I suppose. In general (off-topic) I think mankind should learn to rely on it's own thinking and take responsibility on it, rather than blame god or economy or whatever.

 

I see Matt as simply being modest when he said he didn't feel they deserved it but I understand why they were embarrassed about it. It does seem a bit pointless awarding something comparible to a doctorate to people who haven't gone through the same process as everyone else in achieving it.

 

Yes, I agree with the bold part. He couldn't have said anything else without sounding a prick...

 

Right back to the great hair colour debate! Nah!

 

Er, what hair colour debate? In PMT? Hmm, I might have an opinion on that too

[CarrieB]

 

I mostly agree, but I don't quite get the last bit. Why should it give hope that good ideas come from outside? I think it is perfectly possible that they come from someone's mind. That's what creativity is, I suppose. In general (off-topic) I think mankind should learn to rely on it's own thinking and take responsibility on it, rather than blame god or economy or whatever.

 

Okay (off topic) I partly agree, I think religion needs to die off, at least in the form that results in wars and bigotry and control. But I think it needs a replacement. I think people need to think about what makes a flourishing life, concentrate on our humanity rather than on profit. Actually they are, some people are and I think there's going to be a shift from the neoliberal model at some point, a new outlook and, with my limited knowledge, I'm favouring an Aristolian based outlook.

 

What I mean about there being hope from something outside us though, is that it would be nice to think there is a point to all of our lives really, and to the world, I like spiritual ideas, such as there being a collective and astrology and stuff like that but, in any case, we can at least try and make the best of what we know, not just to benefit our own individual lives but for a happier future for everyone.

 

Er, what hair colour debate? In PMT? Hmm, I might have an opinion on that too

 

Oh I don't know, I think it was meant as a generalistion. I was picking up on a previous post. Do I have an opinion? I'm not sure..I think dark brown, or as it is now. It would seem a bit weird if he suddenly died his hair, red or blue or something, suggesting a mid life crisis! But I'm sure we would get used to it.

[Bliss_Saturday]

Lol I was wondering the same thing when I watched that interveiw and I loled... that is until I read the thread.. thanks for explaining guys! Lol of course he's a doctor.. makes sense..

[Lupus]

While I agree that he is simply being modest, you don't have to say you don't deserve it to be modest. I just think that it doesn't look like it means as much when it's given to you in the way they received theirs... there's acknowledgement, cause you cant give it to just anyone, but there is still that underlying little bug that people who get honoured the 'normal' way don't have.

Might I add that this is very good discussion! Now I'm not so sure on my initial position after the insight from other members

[Kati]

We were talking about peanuts here. We got from simple deserve - not deserve to some sort of metaphysical discussion on philosophy of science, but at the end I would say: do a doctorate and then you know how little wiser or better people you are because of it. If Muse got a doctorate just by becoming arguably the best rock band in the world but without writing that painful stupid little book, and it gives them just a bit of laughter or joy, I'm happy for them. It's really not a big deal, just two letters and a dot, and I'm sure they know this.

[Lupus]

We were talking about peanuts here. We got from simple deserve - not deserve to some sort of metaphysical discussion on philosophy of science, but at the end I would say: do a doctorate and then you know how little wiser or better people you are because of it. If Muse got a doctorate just by becoming arguably the best rock band in the world but without writing that painful stupid little book, and it gives them just a bit of laughter or joy, I'm happy for them. It's really not a big deal, just two letters and a dot, and I'm sure they know this.

 

They sure don't boast about it or take it seriously enough for it to be a big deal to them But its better that way I think, and like you said, I think they think the same