What I try to do is give folks the benefit of the doubt. Charity über Alles.
Rather than read "iconic" and jump to the first conclusion I have, I might try in earnest to read and understand what someone wrote as they intended it to be read.
In this case, if he meant "iconic" in the sense that The Beatles or the Rolling Stones or Elis Presley are iconic then, the tone of the article is off. It's very humble. There were no sour grapes, but rather a kind of happy surprise when he heard that a sound he made years ago was used on the iPhone. It sure doesn't seem like he was puffing himself up.
What's more likely, then? That he meant "iconic" in the Beatles sense or that it didn't occur to him that some folks reading this article might take "iconic" in a way he didn't intend?
Comments
100%!
What I try to do is give folks the benefit of the doubt. Charity über Alles.
Rather than read "iconic" and jump to the first conclusion I have, I might try in earnest to read and understand what someone wrote as they intended it to be read.
In this case, if he meant "iconic" in the sense that The Beatles or the Rolling Stones or Elis Presley are iconic then, the tone of the article is off. It's very humble. There were no sour grapes, but rather a kind of happy surprise when he heard that a sound he made years ago was used on the iPhone. It sure doesn't seem like he was puffing himself up.
What's more likely, then? That he meant "iconic" in the Beatles sense or that it didn't occur to him that some folks reading this article might take "iconic" in a way he didn't intend?
My money is on the latter.