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 You should learn something about literature.

you should learn something about philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J 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.

i have no problem with diffrentiating genres by prefixes, as long as they're diffrentiated.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T you should learn something about philosophy.

You're probably looking for "analogy" because there's nothing philosophical about this issue.

quote:

i have no problem with diffrentiating genres by prefixes, as long as they're diffrentiated.

And they are...

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You're probably looking for "analogy" because there's nothing philosophical about this issue.

the question of whether an author can interpret his own words has got nothing to do with philosophy... right again.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T the question of whether an author can interpret his own words has got nothing to do with philosophy... right again.

He can interpret his own words, but that doesn't mean it's the "correct" definition. Many poets deliberately write poems so that the recieved interpretation reflects the reader. In that way there is no "correct" definition and neither is there supposed to be.

A famous example of literature that does this, and actually isn't poetry, is Waiting For Godot by Samuel Beckett, a very ambiguous play which Beckett flatly refused to explain, stating "It means what it says". How the director stages it is down to how they interpret it, and Beckett was happy that many potential interpretations could be correct.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J He can interpret his own words, but that doesn't mean it's the "correct" definition.

it's fun to discuss such abstract matters as established universal facts, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Many poets deliberately write poems so that the recieved interpretation reflects the reader. In that way there is no "correct" definition and neither is there supposed to be.

and many other poets do not deliberately write poems so that the received interpretation reflects the reader.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J A famous example of literature that does this, and actually isn't poetry, is Waiting For Godot by Samuel Beckett, a very ambiguous play which Beckett flatly refused to explain, stating "It means what it says". How the director stages it is down to how they interpret it, and Beckett was happy that many potential interpretations could be correct.

one instance does not prove the rule. especially when that instance isn't from the relevant field.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews 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.

"Color is the perception of the frequency of light". we can know the frequency, hence we can know the colour we all see, and it matters fuck-all if your perception would have led to a different naming scheme than the one used in everyday life, you still perceive the same frequencies as the rest of us.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T it's fun to discuss such abstract matters as established universal facts, isn't it?

Well you seem to be doing it by suggesting that there is a "correct" interpretation of poetry.

quote:

and many other poets do not deliberately write poems so that the received interpretation reflects the reader.

Not to such a degree, but almost all poets write so that there can be more than one interpretation. I've never known a significant poet (IE: not a kid or amateur) who writes poems with one distinct definition and no room for personal interpretation.

quote:

one instance does not prove the rule. especially when that instance isn't from the relevant field.

This is why you clearly don't know much about poetry or literature at all. Critics of poetry will all come up with different meanings, sometimes very slightly and sometimes very greatly. Are you suggesting that these critics are wrong for not thinking the exact same as poet? Bullshit. I used an example of the play because it's a famous example of an artform which is not usually regarded as quite so ambiguous as poetry. I could easily have used an example from Shakespeare, who uses poetry and verse extensively in his plays.

As has been pointed out, words have different connotations to different people. Poetic devices are intended to be evocative, but what they evoke is down to the reader. Most poetry aims for a general message, but not a rigid, defined one. In fact, that's the antithesis of poetry. You can interpret poems in totally the wrong way, but that's due to your own misunderstanding.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well you seem to be doing it by suggesting that there is a "correct" interpretation of poetry.

while i'm questioning, you're trying to iterate supposedly established facts.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Not to such a degree, but almost all poets write so that there can be more than one interpretation. I've never known a significant poet (IE: not a kid or amateur) who writes poems with one distinct definition and no room for personal interpretation.

what, is there supposed to be some disclaimer attached to a poem instructing us on whether we should bother interpreting it or not?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J This is why you clearly don't know much about poetry or literature at all. Critics of poetry will all come up with different meanings, sometimes very slightly and sometimes very greatly. Are you suggesting that these critics are wrong for not thinking the exact same as poet? Bullshit. I used an example of the play because it's a famous example of an artform which is not usually regarded as quite so ambiguous as poetry. I could easily have used an example from Shakespeare, who uses poetry and verse extensively in his plays. As has been pointed out, words have different connotations to different people. Poetic devices are intended to be evocative, but what they evoke is down to the reader. Most poetry aims for a general message, but not a rigid, defined one. In fact, that's the antithesis of poetry. You can interpret poems in totally the wrong way, but that's due to your own misunderstanding.

and this is why you clearly don't know much about philosophy.
even if you could comprehensively prove to me that poetry up till today has been considered by authors and readers to have no correct interpretation for the most part, it says absolutely nothing regarding whether it ought to have a correct interpretation.

the very existence of a 'work' that has no correct interpretation is debatable.


p.s.
i choose to consider the post i'm replying to as another poem that supports my side of the argument - i'm not wrong in doing so, am i?

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 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!

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T "Color is the perception of the frequency of light". we can know the frequency, hence we can know the colour we all see, and it matters fuck-all if your perception would have led to a different naming scheme than the one used in everyday life, you still perceive the same frequencies as the rest of us.

these frequencies are a human construction, cause there is no other way how we should describe the colours we see. people had to made this up in need of the understanding. people need to understand everything they see/hear/feel/sense, so they have to make up some rules sometimes in case the reason why it happens is not obvious.

it does not prove i see the same colours as you do, nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews these frequencies are a human construction, cause there is no other way how we should describe the colours we see. people had to made this up in need of the understanding. people need to understand everything they see/hear/feel/sense, so they have to make up some rules sometimes in case the reason why it happens is not obvious. it does not prove i see the same colours as you do, nonetheless.

"Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by its wavelength (or frequency) and the intensity or number of photons at each different wavelength. When this radiation has a wavelength inside the human visibility range (approximately from 380 nm to 740 nm), it is known as "visible light" or light within the (human) visible spectrum. A spectrum is a plot that records the intensity at each wavelength. The full spectrum (or distribution of color intensities) of the incoming radiation from an object determines the visual appearance of that object, including its perceived color."

frequencies are not a human construction.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T "Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by its wavelength (or frequency) and the intensity or number of photons at each different wavelength. When this radiation has a wavelength inside the human visibility range (approximately from 380 nm to 740 nm), it is known as "visible light" or light within the (human) visible spectrum. A spectrum is a plot that records the intensity at each wavelength. The full spectrum (or distribution of color intensities) of the incoming radiation from an object determines the visual appearance of that object, including its perceived color." frequencies are not a human construction.

they are. would they exist without people?

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews they are. would they exist without people?

Defining or naming something does not prove its existence.


Did trees exist before someone said, "Hey. That's a tree."

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews they are. would they exist without people?

yes.

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael Defining or naming something does not prove its existence. Did trees exist before someone said, "Hey. That's a tree."

No.

Frequencies exist thank to things that were made up by people. Hence they are a human construction.

It�s obvious that trees exist without naming them, all you have to have to see them is eyes which you have naturally, there�s no need to make them up first.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T yes.

no.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews Frequencies exist thank to things that were made up by people. Hence they are a human construction.

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews No. Frequencies exist thank to things that were made up by people. Hence they are a human construction. It�s obvious that trees exist without naming them, all you have to have to see them is eyes which you have naturally, there�s no need to make them up first.

there's a difference between existing and being detectable.


look, you're obviously out of your element, don't you think it's time you give it a rest?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T there's a difference between existing and being detectable. look, you're obviously out of your element, don't you think it's time you give it a rest?

how do you know if it truly exists if it�s detectable only by people?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery 1) I do not "spit on" 95% of music here 2) How is that even relevant to my post or this thread? 3) If you actually looked at my sig you wouldn't need to ask (tip: click on the grey box).

Haha!

THIS right here is what is wrong and tired with these forums...

Step 1:
Teenagers pop a few pills and feel and curious....

Step 2:
They decide to dive further into the dark side and take a trip to their local Hmv to buy some of this 'mysterious' culture,

Step 3:

They pick up a bunch of shiny boxed compilation cds,

Step 4:
They listen to the accessible, recycled, chart bothering anthems while reading the liner notes... you know about...

the liquid Sci fi sympony... the eclectic, dreamy, hand knitted mixes of breathy, delicious trance funk...

Step 5:
They take all that all that bullshit to heart and come here to enforce their opinion on how music should sound...

And this is where we are at right now.
A typical rude, white, fucking cheesebag telling others about music...
Save it honey, shut the fuck up please

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews how do you know if it truly exists if it�s detectable only by people?

it's detectable by almost every living thing, not only 'people'.


to save on the redundancy of the obvious next question... 'how do you know if it truly exists if it's detectable only by living things?'... that question would apply to everything...

quote:

Originally posted by harriz Haha! THIS right here is what is wrong and tired with these forums... Step 1: Teenagers pop a few pills and feel and curious.... Step 2: They deside to dive further into the dark side and take a trip to their local Hmv to buy some of this 'mysterious' culture, Step 3: They pick up a bunch of shiny boxed compilation cds, Step 4: They listen to the accessible, recycled, chart bothering anthems while reading the liner notes... you know about... the liquid Sci fi sympony... the eclectic, dreamy, hand knitted mixes of breathy, delicious trance funk... Step 5: They take all that all that bullshit to heart and come here to enforce their opinion on how music should sound... And this is where we are at right now. A typical rude, white, fucking cheesebag telling others about music... Save it honey, shut the fuck up please

How does any of that have anything to do with what I posted there? Or this thread?

The fact that I'm on your ignore list seems to be a blatant lie as well. Well done.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T it's detectable by almost every living thing, not only 'people'.

how do you know that? remember, it was detected after people have invented physics. if you have to make up something before you truly detect it, then you can�t be sure if it does not exist just because of the thing you have invented.

quote:

to save on the redundancy of the obvious next question... 'how do you know if it truly exists if it's detectable only by living things?'... that question would apply to everything...

yup, how do you know this is not a dream?

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews how do you know that? remember, it was detected after people have invented physics. if you have to make up something before you truly detect it, then you can�t be sure if it does not exist just because of the thing you have invented.

humans invented physics?! lmao, that's priceless

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews yup, how do you know this is not a dream?

what would be the difference between the 'dream' and the 'reality' then?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T humans invented physics?! lmao, that's priceless

ever heard of the theory of chaos?

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