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 Psy-T well then we have some dissonance here between what you were already told and the opinion of the vast majority who have posted in this thread, so let's just standardize it for the future: A is more hypnotic than B. game over?

lol, how can you standardize a state of hypnosis if you don�t know what puts me in that state?

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews lol, how can you standardize a state of hypnosis if you don�t know what puts me in that state?

the same way i can standardize a color without knowing what color it is that you really see.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews I do. Exactly in the same way as you claim todays trance is no more hypnotic and that is meant to be.

no, not exactly in the same way - i provide reasons and examples, and where i do not, i rely on the majority's opinion in this thread. feel free to call me out on any of those and i'll provide reasons instead.


p.s.

you haven't presented yourself as an authority on poetry, therefore your 'argument' that poetry is X and not Z is null and void.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T the same way i can standardize a color without knowing what color it is that you really see.

you�re completely wrong there. when you standardize a colour, then you are sure, all people who can see, do see some colour. if you standardize a state of hypnosis and say "this is hypnotic" and it does completely nothing to me, then every thing which does nothing to me has to be considered as hypnotic as well. That implies that if there are some new trance tracks that do nothing to me, they are hypnotic, so it�s absolutely okay they are called trance, cause trance has to be hypnotic

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T no, not exactly in the same way - i provide reasons and examples, and where i do not, i rely on the majority's opinion in this thread. feel free to call me out on any of those and i'll provide reasons instead. p.s. you haven't presented yourself as an authority on poetry, therefore your 'argument' that poetry is X and not Z is null and void.

now you prove it�s the other way round. when you have no arguments, you have to bash me. that really shows how mature you are. everything you want is to prove me wrong and not to see the truth, so you�re ridiculously trying to impeach everything I say, regardless of how stupid it is and how it is far from the origin of the debate.

any constructive discussion is impossible with you now.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 I honestly don't hear what's wrong with the second set of tracks.

Breakdowns.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 I anticipated a lot more substance prior to listening to that sample you posted especially from what you just posted above regarding my samples as dull. Instead what I heard was a boring monotonous snoozefest.

Yeah, that's generally the biggest complaint you normal people have against trance. It's an acquired taste, for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews you�re completely wrong there. when you standardize a colour, then you are sure, all people who can see, do see some colour. if you standardize a state of hypnosis and say "this is hypnotic" and it does completely nothing to me, then every thing which does nothing to me has to be considered as hypnotic as well. That implies that if there are some new trance tracks that do nothing to me, they are hypnotic, so it�s absolutely okay they are called trance, cause trance has to be hypnotic

heard of the colour-blind?...

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur Breakdowns. Yeah, that's generally the biggest complaint you normal people have against trance. It's an acquired taste, for sure.

Out of interest, what was that sample of that you put up? It was good.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews now you prove it�s the other way round. when you have no arguments, you have to bash me. that really shows how mature you are. everything you want is to prove me wrong and not to see the truth, so you�re ridiculously trying to impeach everything I say, regardless of how stupid it is and how it is far from the origin of the debate. any constructive discussion is impossible with you now.

the burden of proof is on you, therefore you are the one who has to prove it, i dont need to present any argument when i have none presented against the status quo, i didn't "bash" you as of yet, and no one other than you is noticing any negative signs towrads my 'maturity'.

is what i want to prove you wrong? no, what i want is an interesting aesthetics discussion, something you evidentely cannot provide, as nearly all your arguments have been strawmen & various other fallacies, i even threw a few straw men in your direction hoping it would bring to an interesting point, but you fail to notice any of them. your logic is impaired, and you're not coherent enough on most of your points.

and despite keeping a straight face all this while, avoiding rolling my eyes at some of the idiocies you've uttered, and outright laughing in the middle of the thread - i'm immature, sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T heard of the colour-blind?...

sure, but now we�re talking about music, it does not have anything in common! apply this on music and give me an example, please.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews sure, but now we�re talking about music, it does not have anything in common! apply this on music and give me an example, please.

you have some unreasonable expectations here - you brought up the colours analogy, just because i can twist it around to work for my benefit does not mean i have to interpret it to you, it's your own analogy.

it's valid when you use it, but not when i use it, right?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T the burden of proof is on you, therefore you are the one who has to prove it, i dont need to present any argument when i have none presented against the status quo, i didn't "bash" you as of yet, and no one other than you is noticing any negative signs towrads my 'maturity'.

prove what? you say trance shouldn�t be considered as trance, cause it�s not entrancing, hypnotising etc. and i say it should be, just because there is still a connection between the original production and todays. we both have to prove what we say, i�m trying to do that, you don�t.

quote:

is what i want to prove you wrong? no, what i want is an interesting aesthetics discussion, something you evidentely cannot provide, as nearly all your arguments have been strawmen & various other fallacies, i even threw a few straw men in your direction hoping it would bring to an interesting point, but you fail to notice any of them. your logic is impaired, and you're not coherent enough on most of your points. and despite keeping a straight face all this while, avoiding rolling my eyes at some of the idiocies you've uttered, and outright laughing in the middle of the thread - i'm immature, sure.

it�s symptomatic, how you say this and hypocritically don�t point at any concrete example. imo you should, when you�re talking about "idiocies" here.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews prove what? you say trance shouldn�t be considered as trance, cause it�s not entrancing, hypnotising etc. and i say it should be, just because there is still a connection between the original production and todays. we both have to prove what we say, i�m trying to do that, you don�t.

no, that was a sub-argument about poetry, not about trance.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews it�s symptomatic, how you say this and hypocritically don�t point at any concrete example. imo you should, when you�re talking about "idiocies" here.

does creating an analogy and later on complaining on it's irrelevancy bring a bell? jeez

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T you have some unreasonable expectations here - you brought up the colours analogy, just because i can twist it around to work for my benefit does not mean i have to interpret it to you, it's your own analogy. it's valid when you use it, but not when i use it, right?

that does not mean your argument is wrong there and was used badly, cause in this case, colours and music can�t be compared.

maybe you did not get the bottom line of my analogy. if you can�t responsibly say what colours do the others see (even in case of the colour-blind people - they see them otherwise than the majority of people does but still you have no clue, how exactly do they see them), then you can�t say if music that sounds hypnotic to you sounds hypnotic to them as well. plus that, as i�ve already said, there�s no reason why trance shouldn�t be called trance, even if it does not appeal directly to the roots (there is still a connection, something like a long line of evolution and progress that bounds todays trance and the original one). plus that, the genre name says only one thing - how it was found - and there�s no genre that would sound still the same, even only a few years after the foundation.

There is no way trance is suppose to be.

Like telling an orange its meant to be an apple.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T no, that was a sub-argument about poetry, not about trance.

and i gave you an example with the moon, cross etc. which was directly saying that poetry can be interpreted in many ways and that there is no way that would be the correct one, even if it�s the author�s one. Cause who says what�s correct when there are many ways of interpretation? Cause if something is correct, then it should be applied for every single man, every civilization and culture, without making any differences. 1+1 = 2 and that�s correct, cause it can be applied on everything and everywhere and there�s no other way how to interpret it. but music and art as a whole is not a mathematical formula, it�s something that touches the emotions and creates a space for different interpretations, that�s what the fuck is art all about.

quote:

does creating an analogy and later on complaining on it's irrelevancy bring a bell? jeez

i�ve complained on your irrelevant argument or comment, not on my analogy. jeez

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews that does not mean your argument is wrong there and was used badly, cause in this case, colours and music can�t be compared. maybe you did not get the bottom line of my analogy. if you can�t responsibly say what colours do the others see (even in case of the colour-blind people - they see them otherwise than the majority of people does but still you have no clue, how exactly do they see them), then you can�t say if music that sounds hypnotic to you sounds hypnotic to them as well.

rephrasing your words to be coherent, they go: if you can't completely know what colours do other people see, then you can't say whether music that is hypnotic to you is hynpotic to others.

but for all intents and purposes, i can know what colours other people see (i already explained how), hence i can say that music which is hypnotic to me is hypnotic to others.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews plus that, as i�ve already said, there�s no reason why trance shouldn�t be called trance, even if it does not appeal directly to the roots (there is still a connection, something like a long line of evolution and progress that bounds todays trance and the original one). plus that, the genre name says only one thing - how it was found

thanks, but i'm not big on the idea of walking in circles, you uttered that argument some 3 pages ago.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews and there�s no genre that would sound still the same, even only a few years after the foundation.

...so how is grunge rock different to what it was 15 years ago?

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews and i gave you an example with the moon, cross etc. which was directly saying that poetry can be interpreted in many ways and that there is no way that would be the correct one, even if it�s the author�s one. Cause who says what�s correct when there are many ways of interpretation? Cause if something is correct, then it should be applied for every single man, every civilization and culture, without making any differences. 1+1 = 2 and that�s correct, cause it can be applied on everything and everywhere and there�s no other way how to interpret it. but music and art as a whole is not a mathematical formula, it�s something that touches the emotions and creates a space for different interpretations, that�s what the fuck is art all about. i�ve complained on your irrelevant argument or comment, not on my analogy. jeez

i declare that post poetry and starting now the meaning of it fully supports every claim i made in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T rephrasing your words to be coherent, they go: if you can't completely know what colours do other people see, then you can't say whether music that is hypnotic to you is hynpotic to others. but for all intents and purposes, i can know what colours other people see (i already explained how), hence i can say that music which is hypnotic to me is hypnotic to others.

you don�t know that and unfortunately, i don�t see where have you explained that properly. tell me how do you know "your" black isn�t "my" white? you can�t - simply because you�re not using my eyes and my brain - you�re not me.

quote:

...so how is grunge rock different to what it was 15 years ago?

dunno, i don�t know nothing about grunge rock, despite that i still doubt there has not been any progress.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i declare that post poetry and starting now the meaning of it fully supports every claim i made in this thread.

i don�t see how it supports that.

Aaahhh shut the fuck up, man. Such a pretentious post and then you come up with those bull shit samples. Unbelievable.

The Auranaut - Yo Yo

Go listen to that.

whatthehellisthis is good

quote:

Originally posted by DJ_Madcap Sounds more like early Resistance D. Really early Resistance D.

Yup, sounds like a reworked Cosmic Love.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy The Auranaut - Yo Yo Go listen to that.

Ok I listened to it on beatport and I gotta say that's actually pretty damn good. It's repetitive, but somehow I'm not bored of it. Great find Jimmy!

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T it can't be officially interpreted? how about by the author himself? he can't do it either, right?...

You should learn something about literature.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T just because the original definitions are supposedly imperfect is not reason enough to not perfect the definitions and create new ones.

You miss the point. Epic trance is perfectly fine as a definition. This insistence that trance must be hypnotic and repetitive to warrant the name is ridiculous, because there's plenty of music that fits that description yet quite clearly belongs to other genres. Epic trance sounds like classic trance but put into an epic frame.

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