TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Trance: The Way It's Supposed To Be
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 »

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Ah right. It does imply there's a hypothetical correct interpretation, but at the same time shows how it cannot be found. A classic piece of featherweight philosophy is the tree in the forest. If you did have a perfect interpretation (hypothetically), you'd never know it and there'd be no way of knowing it.

i'll drop this point, as it leads to a circle (right back to the authority of the poet).

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It's not the case now. There was nothing for several posts even mentioning static or dynamic.

we've already been through this (and will expand on it at the end of the post)

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Right. So if the very things that affect how you percieve a poem are subject. So the interpretation is subject. So there is no correct interpretation.

sorry, that was meant to read "subject to change", supposing you read it as such - the interpretation's being subject to change does not lead to the inference that there is no correct interpretation.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Do you seriously think when a poet describes something they're aiming for the reader to percieve exactly the same room or garden or whatever that the poet does? And if they don't then they're percieving something not in the poem and thus they're incorrectly interpreting it? No. The poet writes words that suggest a warm, cosy room. If someone pictures a room like that, no matter what form it takes then they have a valid interpretation, even if they've visualised something very different to the poet.

not as a general rule, i dont. we were working with your line "If you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable..." - an explicit delcaration of intent.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I don't think this is true. For a start, the poet may never read the poem again, and also, speaking personally, I tend to visualise the same thing in a poem as the first time I read it, no matter how much later on in time I visit it.

being dynamic doesnt suggest change is inevitable, it only suggests change is viable, at least that is how i understand it in this context.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Either way, this definition of non-static does not alter the conditions of the debate like you seem to suggest.

how so?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But you just said otherwise: And I've already said why viewing an interpretation as "short-sighted" is wrong, so I really don't see what your clarification of "non-static" does to change the argument.

lol, yes, i just conceded a point to you, does that happen so rarely that you thought i was somehow still debating that point?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The amount of poetry with nothing open to interpretation is miniscule. In addition, the fact that such a poem has nothing to interpret is evident in it- it is an inherent property.

that's not what i meant. i meant that the maxim's validity at large is still being debated by us, therefore that instance is not yet an exception.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If poets held tha their own interpretation was correct, then literary criticism probably wouldn't exist and poetry would not be popular, as we'd all listen to the party line from the poet, apply it to the poem and move on.

that's assuming the poet will indeed disseminate his interpretation, which is nowhere implied.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well it's crazy to assume that physical laws apply to things that cannot be modelled physically. If you argument is genuinely that I should have assumed that you meant "non-static" entirely due to an analogous application of Relativity, you're a nutcase, mate.

what's wrong with the following statement?
an interpretation to a poem can only be both correct and static if it exists in a (mental) vacuum.

quote:

Originally posted by RebeL9 just so you don't get this wrong. alot of the old trance tunes are quite repetetive and rhythmic compared to the tunes of today. back then there were no 3 min breaks and screaming bitches shouting out stuff about lost love and eternity.

yeah i know. I think you told me that before or at least somebody has.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange For perhaps the last time, in my opinion [[ LINK REMOVED ]] is trance, while [[ LINK REMOVED ]] is not. Did you notice the difference?

If you hadn't told me that those clips were trance I would have thought the first clip was acid and the second clip breakbeats. I think the very first clip you posted, not these, was a better example.

This is just beyond absurd already...

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery This is just beyond absurd already...

Oh c'mon cranky pants. This MD section finally brings up some much needed debate, even it is subjective.

subjective? more like worthess debate, is anyone even reading all the crap going on between Psy T and Paulandrews and whoever else is partaking in this mindless discussion?

Thread Closed

quote:

Originally posted by Danny Ocean subjective? more like worthess debate, is anyone even reading all the crap going on between Psy T and Paulandrews and whoever else is partaking in this mindless discussion?

yeah, let's have a thousand more 'favorite tunes while on the toilet/at a funeral/eating/being sick/breathing/living/posting on ta/having sex/et cetera ad infinitum' instead. oh, and topcharts too!

3 Points:

1. This thread is great

2. Psy T is a pedantic dickhead who creates arguments where they do not exist.

3. I love Mr. Mystery.


Thanks

This is getting extremely hard work due to the quoting of quotes of quotes, and we're pissing a lot of people off. I might call it quits after this post. Good discussion either way.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T sorry, that was meant to read "subject to change", supposing you read it as such - the interpretation's being subject to change does not lead to the inference that there is no correct interpretation.

Okay, so they're subject to change. They're still unique to the poet. You're still saying that the poet's interpretation is correct. This definition of a dynamic interpretation doesn't alter my counter argument.

quote:

not as a general rule, i dont. we were working with your line "If you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable..." - an explicit delcaration of intent.

Yes... but that isn't an explicit definition. If someone comes up with an even cosier and more comfortable room than you yourself can picture, even though you set down the definition, then their interpretation is closer to what you were trying to convey than you.

quote:

being dynamic doesnt suggest change is inevitable, it only suggests change is viable, at least that is how i understand it in this context.

As said above, this doesn't change anything.

quote:

lol, yes, i just conceded a point to you, does that happen so rarely that you thought i was somehow still debating that point?

I guess so. Although you have been dropping out certain parts of my posts rather than countering them.

quote:

that's not what i meant. i meant that the maxim's validity at large is still being debated by us, therefore that instance is not yet an exception.

But equally I can use the same line to say it doesn't prove it is a general rule. The real issue is: do you honestly consider most poetry to have the same level of interpretation as that poem? If you think so, then it isn't an exception to you, but I doubt you think that.

that's assuming the poet will indeed disseminate his interpretation, which is nowhere implied.

quote:

what's wrong with the following statement? an interpretation to a poem can only be both correct and static if it exists in a (mental) vacuum.

Depends on what you mean by a mental vacuum. If you consider the paramters of a mental vacuum, you could say that such a thing wouldn't allow interpretation of poetry at all.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J This is getting extremely hard work due to the quoting of quotes of quotes, and we're pissing a lot of people off. I might call it quits after this post. Good discussion either way.

fair enough, sorry i couldn't provide more of a challenge (was more important to me to keep the discussion going and get somewhere with it than to be 'right' about... any of the points).

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I guess so. Although you have been dropping out certain parts of my posts rather than countering them.

yes, mostly parts leading in circles, dead ends, redundancies and such.


thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM 1. This thread is great 2. Psy T is a pedantic dickhead who creates arguments where they do not exist.

supposing 1 isn't a sarcastic comment, you have my tendence to be a pedantic dickhead to thank for the fact the thread grew to be anything at all.

now if it was sarcastic... i love you too!

Well what is your point then?

I find the thread great, in no small part due to your tendency to be a pedantic dickhead, no sarcasm at all.

Fucking hell there you go again creating arguments where they do not exist

Well you are entertaining as well as pedantic...

while browsing this thread, i was listening to a powerful track

listen to Jamaster A - Tiananmen (Airbase remix) and close you eyes

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T fair enough, sorry i couldn't provide more of a challenge (was more important to me to keep the discussion going and get somewhere with it than to be 'right' about... any of the points).

I enjoyed having a debate that wasn't just the other guy trying to prove constantly that he's smarter than you, and apologies if I came across like that.

quote:

where in the thread have you seen the word "fake trance"? where have you seen me or anyone stipulate that 'the real trance' is better than 'the fake trance'?

But isn't this why you fight so hard for the music that according to you "sounds like trance" whereas the ASOT stuff don't sound like it at all?Isn't this the main reason that you have allready written about 10000 words?!?!!?!?That we have to perfect the "Definition" of music???(genre-naming).Correct if i'm wrong. Obviously you didn't directly speak about the "real" and the "fake" but possibly that's what is in your mind...I'm pretty sure you are a psy-whore as the other "kiddies" are ASOT-whores, you don't have any differences at all you are both in a very bad situtation lol.

quote:

genres (among other things) are tools at our disposal, why shouldn't we perfect their definitions and objectify them?

WTF??!?!"OBJECTIFY" THE GENRES....DUDE...stop listening to psychedelic because it obviously has a very bad effect in your brain cells!!!!(i suggest go find a psychiatrist near you).

Gene names are not like bricks or stones, they are symbols representing information. In this case genre names(like "trance")are created because they have possibly represented one persons (or many)"Experience"(perceptions) in relation to musical sounds.In what fucking ways can someone objectify an experience...how can someone measure or see the subjective qualities of music impressions.I still don't know of an percepto-meter neither a percepto-scope....


THERE IS NO REASON TO OBJECTIFY MUSIC BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT CAN'T BE DONE...If the sound of "resistance-d", "dance2trance", "cosmic-baby" and stuff sounds like "trance" to you than sorry, but to my mom sounds like TRASH!!!If psy sounds like some really good "psychedelic-shit" that totally deserves it's name than sorry, but it sounds like "puke-dance" to me, it surely sounds in this way after 7 minutes of listening to it(makes me terribly dizzy ...)

I will than refer to my previous post which said (and you probably didn't get it...)that genre-names are symbols created form happenstance subjective personal experiences and therefore they canno't be objectified due to their very nature. The only think that someone can do is to "Group" them (in an ad-hoc way) in relation to some surface characteristics (e.g. types of organs used)and again this very grouping is very lousy and subject-to-change, probably deviating form person to person.

quote:

The argument that trance is not trance because it doesn't sound like "Trance" is one of the most stupid arguments i've ever heard...genre-names are not there to accurately and objectively describe with 100% accuracy the sound they represent...they are maybe born form that reason but that's all there is really, names stay because a proportion of the human population agrees for that matter and that "human population" is not just a "one-level" linear factor but a "multi-lever non-linear" dynamic entity with music industries, musicians, musician managers, the odience,PR, media and many other "happen-stance circumstances" parallerly co-contributing to genre-name sustainments,genre-name changes, sub-genre "births", etc....e.g. the term "gothic-rock" was crated for the new-wave band joy division because the manager thought that it was cool...the current band just had a darker sound of new-wave but nevertheless they had nothing in common with gothic buildings, gothic eras or gothic literature for that matter...furthermore they didn't "rock" at all...not like Elvis...

Genre naming CAN NEVER BE OBJECTIVE it can only be SUGGESTIVE. Furthermore, genre-names are not like scientific(psychological?) experiments, people don't gather responding to stimuli making categorical judgements neither do they answer questionaires about what is the appropriate genre-name.Genre names do not derive from ANOVA calculatios!

As i said before one man and one moment is enough to generate a genre...(simple happenstance) and this is probably what usually happens.This fact alone is enough to make genre and sub-genre names faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from objective. If this genre naming "sounds nice" to the public and brings money to the industries than it does it's job quite well and there is no reason to change it at all...and this is the case here.There is a whole sub-genre(s) describing the ASOT sound it has many names they are called..."uplifting", "Epic", "melodic" it was called "euro" etc...and it does it's job just fine.In a matter of fact, this music is a direct derivative of the early-90s trance and at a surface level it shares many common points such as the melodic lead-lines(despite sounding "happy" in an ASOT track or "dark" in an LSG track)the base-line sequences etc...

A last point...why should we change genre-names in the present case i still don't understand...is it because they don't sound like the early trance artists of the 90s(yeah yeah oliver lieb, resistance-d...)or psy or because it doesn't sound "entrancing" to your ears??!?!!?

If it's the first than you have to swollow the bitter pill and understand that thinks just change so you can just stick to what you like or sue the labels and music industry for keeping the last name ("trance") in the current sub-genre...

If it's the second than it's totally your subjective problem and a therapist can provide help...

See, i'm actually the first to provide solutions!!!

Is it just me, or is PETRAN arguing with his own posts?

gee, and i thought i was done with this thread, silly me

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN But isn't this why you fight so hard for the music that according to you "sounds like trance" whereas the ASOT stuff don't sound like it at all?Isn't this the main reason that you have allready written about 10000 words?!?!!?!?That we have to perfect the "Definition" of music???(genre-naming).Correct if i'm wrong. Obviously you didn't directly speak about the "real" and the "fake" but possibly that's what is in your mind...I'm pretty sure you are a psy-whore as the other "kiddies" are ASOT-whores, you don't have any differences at all you are both in a very bad situtation lol.......

no it isn't why i fight 'so hard', and it's far from the main reason i wrote '10,000' words (lol, speaking of writing an overabundance of words i think you might have written more words in your 3 posts here than i have in my 40-50 posts [exaggerating of course]), and no, i'm far from being a 'psy-whore', it's not even among my main genres of interest.

the rest of your post is even more congested, relying on misunderstandings and miscommunications, and i'm too tired to respond to it anyway. if you want to continue this discussion, feel free to write a more sensible post, and please try to avoid making too many assumptions - you're not doing too well with them so far and i'll reply tomorrow.

seriously, put this thread in the classic thread archive!

The board has been full of this talk for so long, we need to preserve such a great example of all these arguments we've been having.

Psy-T and System-J - I know what interweb warriors you are...

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Psy-T and System-J - I know what interweb warriors you are...

1. that's an awesome link, thanks
2. i made a post on the 2nd page of this thread expressing my happiness that we reached a discussion on aesthetics, way before the debate really 'started', hence your disbelief is unjustified
3. normally in dick measuring contests you don't admit yours is smaller, nor congratulate your opposition, hence this was not a dick measuring contest

Well at least you arent an Ishkur...

quote:

the rest of your post is even more congested, relying on misunderstandings and miscommunications, and i'm too tired to respond to it anyway. if you want to continue this discussion, feel free to write a more sensible post, and please try to avoid making too many assumptions - you're not doing too well with them so far and i'll reply tomorrow.

Nope, i think it's just fine, i know very well what i'm writting thank you...(i had "philosophy of mind" and "consciousness" modules when i was in my undergraduate psychology course and i still don't forget the experiments i had as part of my "cognitive psychology" module in "concepts and categorisation"(how minds categorise thinks or "internal representations" into "semantic networks")! and i can't see any miscommunications...you can tell me were i got it wrong and i'll be happy to respond back.Although it is true that maybe it was all over thr place, nothing to do with a proper university report.But than it's tranceaddict lol.The main ideas were very coherent though.It is true that it went too faaaaaaaaaaaar...

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN and i can't see any miscommunications...you can tell me were i got it wrong and i'll be happy to respond back.

Probably the bit where you failed to use coherent grammar. Seriously, it gives me a headache to read such a long and poorly written post, let alone understand it. And really: weren't you arguing with your own posts? I can't tell.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN and i can't see any miscommunications...you can tell me were i got it wrong and i'll be happy to respond back.

well, why didn't you do that already? i did reply to your first pargaraph (if it can be called that), one which made 5 assumptions or so and got 4 of them wrong.

the rest of it when skimmed through shows a general lack of understanding of my points (bundled with the house of cards effect), and includes a hell of a lot of text about the current scheme of things... while there was no serious debate about it.

the arguments aren't about the facts, they are about our interpretation of them and where we should head from them.

LOL, the first paragraph wasn't about the discussion though, i was just making an assumption about you and that wasn't even serious. Anyways it went too far though you are right, but i clearly know what i'm writting and in a matter of fact, you don't need to interpret thinks if you allready have facts about them. That's what i did, i explained(it is true incoherently though) that subjective experiences (music) and genres(weak ways to group subjective experiences by one or a small number of people) are not identical and therefore there was nothing to "perfect and objectify"(the genres as you said) that's all.That fact was enough to stop this discussion from the beginning.With no need for implausible poetry analogies

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.