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 paulandrews ever heard of the theory of chaos?

another human invention!

lol, paul, quit it.. you're just embarrassing yourself more and more with each post

maybe i have not expressed clearly. yeah, it may look like i�m saying that people have invented gravity, magnetic resonance etc.. of course they haven�t. what people did was transforming these natural laws into numbers and formulas. then, thank to them, they were able to see things they have not earlier and so on. when i was talking about physics i was talking about the science, about the way how people handled with the given laws. that�s the istrument they had to use to discover frequencies etc.

end of that.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery How does any of that have anything to do with what I posted there? Or this thread? .

You were so highly critical on the original thread so I looked at your sig to find the good 'eclectic' stuff you approve of and suggest.
Guess what?

--->IT WAS WORSE THAN I THOUGHT! <---


Tough guy here with his crappy pop remixes is talking about how trance should be...

quote:

Originally posted by harriz You were so highly critical on the original thread so I looked at your sig to find the good 'eclectic' stuff you approve of and suggest. Guess what? --->IT WAS WORSE THAN I THOUGHT! <--- Tough guy here with his crappy pop remixes is talking about how trance should be...

I haven't said anything about any of the tracks people have talked about in this thread. What the hell are you talking about?

Tough guy? Crappy pop remixes? What the fuck?

How can you even reply to me if I'm on your ignore list? Who ARE you anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by paulandrews maybe i have not expressed clearly. yeah, it may look like i�m saying that people have invented gravity, magnetic resonance etc.. of course they haven�t. what people did was transforming these natural laws into numbers and formulas. then, thank to them, they were able to see things they have not earlier and so on. when i was talking about physics i was talking about the science, about the way how people handled with the given laws. that�s the istrument they had to use to discover frequencies etc. end of that.

so do you finally realize the redundancy of your last few posts here?
do you have anything more to say (that has not been said before)?
are you done?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery Crappy pop remixes? What the fuck? What the hell are you talking about?

What I am talking about is... your shit record collection of pussy trance!

Don't get me wrong the music you like does serve a purpose.
People like you go out and buy that prefabricated 'Matt Darrey', 'hands in the air' pussy trance, record stores make enough money to pay the bills and we have a place to buy quality music from artists like Ken Ishii, Deetron, Dave Clarke, Umek, Hertz, Ben Sims ect

quote:

Originally posted by harriz What I am talking about is... your shit record collection of pussy trance! Don't get me wrong the music you like does serve a purpose. People like you go out and buy that prefabricated 'Matt Darrey', 'hands in the air' pussy trance, record stores make enough money to pay the bills and we have a place to buy quality music from artists like Ken Ishii, Deetron, Dave Clarke, Umek, Hertz, Ben Sims ect

What defines "quality music"? Why is the music you listen to any better than what I listen to? Because there's less listeners? Because it's not "mainstream"? Because it's somehow cooler than what I listen to?



Music is a matter of taste. You claim I am an elitist of some sort, yet you laugh at the collection I have. What does that make you?

Furthermore,
I am a DJ. I play what people want to hear. It doesn't mean I always like it. However, it does mean my collection doesn't hold any of the bullshit you just said was "quality" right there. What does that tell you?



Fuck off.

lol that's awesome, don't stop.

what was this thread all about ? i lost track

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_M what was this thread all about ? i lost track

Damned if I know...

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery [quote]it's somehow cooler than what I listen to?

Yup.

quote:

Music is a matter of taste.

In your case it's bad taste .

quote:

you laugh at the collection I have. What does that make you?

A person who has reached the age of reason.

quote:

Furthermore, I am a DJ. I play what people want to hear.

I bet you got massive dancefloor response playing Sarah mclachlan - 'stupid' haven't you stupid?
How about the other hi-pitched 'floorkiller' ?

I'll be sinceeeeere for you
whatever's gonna happen now
sinceeeeere for you, I will
always heeeere for you
whatever you decide right now
sinceeere for you.....

quote:

Originally posted by harriz In your case it's bad taste .

Zing. You owned me there

Oh wait...

quote:

A person who has reached the age of reason.

...and that would be... ?

quote:

I bet you got massive dancefloor response playing Sarah mclachlan - 'stupid' haven't you stupid?

Yes.

quote:

How about the other hi-pitched 'floorkiller' ? I'll be sinceeeeere for you whatever's gonna happen now sinceeeeere for you, I will always heeeere for you whatever you decide right now sinceeere for you.....

Well that one I got for free.

Now, would you actually like to answer my questions? Who are you and why do I never see you respond to anyone's posts but mine even though I'm on your ignore list?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T while i'm questioning, you're trying to iterate supposedly established facts.

Oh bullshit. Talk about double standards. You may have put a question mark in, but you're quite clearly stating what you believe. As did I. My original sentence you're trying to tar as an assertion of fact is as open ended as yours. So fuck off.

quote:

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

There will be a disclaimer by the content of the poem.

Roses are red
Violets are blue,
In Soviet Russia
Poem writes you.

There's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there. It appears in poem form, which is its sole qualifier. Most real poetry will be instantly identifiable as something which can be interpreted in several ways. It's like the difference between Con Air and Apocalypse Now: you can tell by watching that one is purely an exercise in aesthetics while the other is actually suggesting things. The disclaimer is the poem.

quote:

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 issue of whether poetry (or any art form) should have a correct interpretation is entirely down to the creator. There's no philosophy, because they brought the piece into the world and their words and metaphors and imagery define how far a work is open to interpretation. To argue a grand philosophical point about what poetry ought to be about is immaterial. There can't be a correct definition if the creator didn't define one, and as art exists through creativity the fundamental "correctness" of an interpretation can only be as far as the poet or creator wishes.

quote:

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

As a pure philosophical point, you could try and say a poem has a correct meaning even if the poet didn't think of it themselves. But as there is no authority on the correctness of the definition beyond the poet themselves, the philosophical issue is not at all relevant.

quote:

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?

Of course you're wrong. Any Russian Formalist would be frothing at the mouth to hear that. Even if you discard all the things clearly marking it out as non-poetry: it's in prose, no underlying rhythm and so forth, it's quite clearly not poetry. Your clever-clever logical tools fly in the face of your earlier assertion that you are not trying to state abstract terms in fact, and for all your debating jargon you don't really understand what you're debating about.

Also, a disclaimer: I'm not claiming to support Paul Andrews in any of his posts, even as poetry as a good analogy. He's been wrong on almost every count.

I liked this part alot:

quote:

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

YES! Standards do that! Hypnotic has a difinition, and if things that are hypnotic don't do anything for you, then at least you know that hypnotic is not what you are looking for! But there is a false dichotomy in this argument, there is a third option you are neglecting, which is that there are many things which are not hypnotic and may also do nothing for you.

I have to say, I love this friggin thread, all these different arguments over interperetation, quality, meaning, and shit I've written so much about in previous threads, it just makes me feel happy that other people are thinking about this same stuff even if they go way overboard and abuse it to protect thier egos(you know who you are). I kinda thought that everybody was sick of me writing shit like that but now I see lots of people going down these same topics, it just makes me feel a little better, like im not such a friggin weirdo.

There is one issue with creating a standard for what is hypnotising that we need to be aware of though. If you ask a real psychologist about hypnosis (not one of these weird quack religous people, but the kind of psychologist that actually conducts experiements and does verifiable research), they will tell you that hypnosis is not an objective fact, that people cannot be hypnotized unless they WANT TO BE hypnotized. I urge you all to look into this for yourself rather than blindly accepting my opinion. Scientists don't beleive there is a standard for hypnosis, even they beleive that hypnosis does not work without ENGAGEMENT. You can't define trance because you can't define what is entrancing because you can't define what is engaging! That's not to say there is no point in using the category or that the word trance is completely meaningless, just that engagement plays an important role in trance which cannot be ignored, so whatever standard you come up with, you have to qualify it with your opinions of what is engaging in order for it to make any sense.

trance is just a name given to define a genre, period. Fuck what it does to you, if your entranced or not...who cares, it's music...the name just helps categorize tracks. So todays "trance" is just mislabeled, because it does not contain the same elements it did back in the early 90's, not to mention it's a completely different style.
However the name stuck on other tracks because of DJs, etc..and now tracks that aren't really trance get called trance, so it' sjust the way it is, deal with it because it's not going to change no matter how much you cry. In other words, fuck genre labeling and enjoy the music for what it is, or don't.

This is the worst thread in the history of the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Oh bullshit. Talk about double standards. You may have put a question mark in, but you're quite clearly stating what you believe. As did I. My original sentence you're trying to tar as an assertion of fact is as open ended as yours. So fuck off. There will be a disclaimer by the content of the poem. Roses are red Violets are blue, In Soviet Russia Poem writes you. There's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there. It appears in poem form, which is its sole qualifier. Most real poetry will be instantly identifiable as something which can be interpreted in several ways. It's like the difference between Con Air and Apocalypse Now: you can tell by watching that one is purely an exercise in aesthetics while the other is actually suggesting things. The disclaimer is the poem. The issue of whether poetry (or any art form) should have a correct interpretation is entirely down to the creator. There's no philosophy, because they brought the piece into the world and their words and metaphors and imagery define how far a work is open to interpretation. To argue a grand philosophical point about what poetry ought to be about is immaterial. There can't be a correct definition if the creator didn't define one, and as art exists through creativity the fundamental "correctness" of an interpretation can only be as far as the poet or creator wishes. As a pure philosophical point, you could try and say a poem has a correct meaning even if the poet didn't think of it themselves. But as there is no authority on the correctness of the definition beyond the poet themselves, the philosophical issue is not at all relevant. Of course you're wrong. Any Russian Formalist would be frothing at the mouth to hear that. Even if you discard all the things clearly marking it out as non-poetry: it's in prose, no underlying rhythm and so forth, it's quite clearly not poetry. Your clever-clever logical tools fly in the face of your earlier assertion that you are not trying to state abstract terms in fact, and for all your debating jargon you don't really understand what you're debating about. Also, a disclaimer: I'm not claiming to support Paul Andrews in any of his posts, even as poetry as a good analogy. He's been wrong on almost every count.

apparently you haven't noticed how inconsistent you have been on your position here, so allow me to remind you.
when i suggested a poem could in fact have an 'official' interpretation, and suggested the author as the determinating authority on it, you replied that i should learn something about literature.

and from your last post quoted above we have:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J There's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there.

and:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The issue of whether poetry (or any art form) should have a correct interpretation is entirely down to the creator.

and:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But as there is no authority on the correctness of the definition beyond the poet themselves

but don't mind me, as i'm the one who doesn't understand what he's debating about.

.

Thanks first of all to Danny Ocean and DJ_Madcap for realising that this topic is total shit.

Secondly Psy-T for writing stuff like

"well yeah, trance is made for the underground... while these supposed 'trance' tunes are made for... well... you guys" this.
Are you fucking stupid? Let the people listen to what they feel like dude.

.....People like you I would bloody punch in the face, just get bloody fucked and try being smart somewhere else.

Re: .

quote:

Originally posted by merusame Thanks first of all to Danny Ocean and DJ_Madcap for realising that this topic is total shit. Secondly Psy-T for writing stuff like "well yeah, trance is made for the underground... while these supposed 'trance' tunes are made for... well... you guys" this. Are you fucking stupid? Let the people listen to what they feel like dude.

ermm who am i keeping from listening to any music? are you fucking stupid? apparently so.

quote:

Originally posted by merusame .....People like you I would bloody punch in the face

i'd love to see you try.

quote:

Originally posted by merusame just get bloody fucked and try being smart somewhere else.

i do get fucked and i am smart at other places as is, and i apologise i can't project these things on to you.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T apparently you haven't noticed how inconsistent you have been on your position here, so allow me to remind you. when i suggested a poem could in fact have an 'official' interpretation, and suggested the author as the determinating authority on it, you replied that i should learn something about literature.

But my point is that most authors don't lay down official interpretations, and poetry that does have one interpretation tends be very simplistic. A poet may not actually have the most reliable interpretation of their own poem, if you want to use your own philosophy on it. This can be due to both the failure of someone to analyse their own feelings accurately, the haziness of the meaning they're actually aiming for and also that different people may actually envisage the poet's point better than the poet themselves can. However, there's no way of determining the truly most accurate interpretation. So, as I said, the poet is the last word on how correct someone's interpretation is, but that doesn't mean the poet will ever lay down the official interpretation.

Just an example:

A poet writes a poem, with a meaning. Say it's about the painfulness of racism. Somebody interprets it completely wrongly, and the poet can say "That's not what I was intending you to think at all." However, somebody else reads it. Say the poet uses the word "garden" at a point. Now there is no universal definition of garden in terms of imagery: your image of a garden will be drastically different to mine. The way someone pictures that word and its implications in their head can actually create a clearer version of the message than the author's own vision of the garden allowed. If the poet could see this interpretation in the other person's head, they may well say: "That view is closer to what I was intending than I actually see in my poem."

Going right back to your original quote:

quote:

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

Then yes, it's perfectly possible that the author's interpretation is not as close as someone else's. I was using the point that the author's word is the yard-stick to point out that there's no way of knowing some philosophical universal correct interpretation, and we can only go on the author's interpretation compared to that of others.

quote:

but don't mind me, as i'm the one who doesn't understand what he's debating about.

You're merely good at quoting parts out of context to make them look like contradictions. To quote "There's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there" as if that contradicts the other two shows that you aren't following.

at this thread and its jaunt into poetry.

quote:

Originally posted by Demoted at this thread and its jaunt into poetry.

Enjoy it. TA will never be so highbrow again.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But my point is that most authors don't lay down official interpretations, and poetry that does have one interpretation tends be very simplistic. A poet may not actually have the most reliable interpretation of their own poem, if you want to use your own philosophy on it. This can be due to both the failure of someone to analyse their own feelings accurately, the haziness of the meaning they're actually aiming for and also that different people may actually envisage the poet's point better than the poet themselves can. However, there's no way of determining the truly most accurate interpretation. So, as I said, the poet is the last word on how correct someone's interpretation is, but that doesn't mean the poet will ever lay down the official interpretation.

i didn't claim a poem has but one interpretation - i claimed it has one correct interpretation.
i didn't claim the poet would lay down an official interpretation either - i only claimed he is a viable source for such official interpretation.

btw, i hope you realize that this segment of your post completely contradicts your sentence that philosophy has nothing to do with this issue.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Then yes, it's perfectly possible that the author's interpretation is not as close as someone else's. I was using the point that the author's word is the yard-stick to point out that there's no way of knowing some philosophical universal correct interpretation, and we can only go on the author's interpretation compared to that of others.

so what was the call to debate my knowledge of literature in the first place considering you essentially agree with my statement - especially when it was explained in two or three different ways in the thread already?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You're merely good at quoting parts out of context to make them look like contradictions. To quote "There's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there" as if that contradicts the other two shows that you aren't following.

i was quoting 3 parts of your post that contradict your earlier point and making the entire discussion redundant, not 1 that is contradicted by the latter 2, hence i didn't quote out of relavant context, and they are in fact contradictions.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i didn't claim a poem has but one interpretation - i claimed it has one correct interpretation.

But there's no way of ever knowing a correct interpretation and thus it does not actually exist. It's a purely abstract thing, built out of philosophy that is irrelevant. Hence why there is no philosophy to this issue.

quote:

i didn't claim the poet would lay down an official interpretation either - i only claimed he is a viable source for such official interpretation.

But I've just shown why the poet can not be a totally viable source.

quote:

btw, i hope you realize that this segment of your post completely contradicts your sentence that philosophy has nothing to do with this issue.

It doesn't. I chose to extend the philosophy to show how it reaches an abstract conclusion. The realistic conclusion is that there is no official interpretation and even the poet cannot lay one down.

quote:

so what was the call to debate my knowledge of literature in the first place considering you essentially agree with my statement - especially when it was explained in two or three different ways in the thread already?

I don't essentially agree with it. I agree that a poet can define a definition for their own poem and that if you want to call authority on definitions then theirs is the yardstick, but I do not agree that a poet's definition is the "official" one and as a result, poetry has no official "correct" meaning at all.

quote:

i was quoting 3 parts of your post that contradict your earlier point and making the entire discussion redundant, not 1 that is contradicted by the latter 2, hence i didn't quote out of relavant context, and they are in fact contradictions.

You quote one that has absolutely fuck all to do with it, in agreement or otherwise, and you quote two more which don't actually mean the opposite, but merely look like they do if you aren't reading them.

Put simply: "The issue of whether poetry (or any art form) should have a correct interpretation is entirely down to the creator" does not mean the poet knows that correct definition. Some poets may well feel that there can be levels of accuracy in interpretations (especially if they're stream-of-consciousness poets who's own poetry derives from the subconscious and so they probably understand it less than an external observer), but that's merely talking about whether or not a poet wishes to grade interpretations. Most don't. It doesn't say a poet can come up with the correct interpretation themselves.

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