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 But there's no way of ever knowing a correct interpretation and thus it does not actually exist.

your example suggests otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It's a purely abstract thing, built out of philosophy that is irrelevant. Hence why there is no philosophy to this issue.

the fact i can still viably dispute your thesis using philosophy shows that it is relevant aswell as potentially contained in the issue (disregarding the fact that philosophy could be used to analyze everything and hence is relavant to everything and contained within everything).

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But I've just shown why the poet can not be a totally viable source.

in your example the poet had a correct interpretation to the poem - his own. he first used his authority to dispute a false interpretation, and later used his authority to incorporate someone else's view.

i never said the correct interpretation needs to be a static one.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J 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.

read above as to why philosophy is relavant, contained, and even realistic (thanks to your example) to the issue.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J 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.

erm... how far is "official" from "authority" in your view here?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J 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.

i'm sorry, but i don't see how "there's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there" has absolutely fuck all to do with whether the creator of the work has the official interpretation to a work.

as to whether they are opposite to your first point that i should learn something about literature (which i perceived as a sarcastic way to say that i know nothing of literature) depends on whether i perceived you correctly: if i did, they are opposite; if i didn't, consider me as awaiting enlightenment.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T your example suggests otherwise.

Not really. It's an example of how someone else's interpretation may actually be closer to the meaning of the poem than the poet themselves can visualise. It merely suggests that the interpretation and how correct it is can be purely based on the person, which highlights why there is no correct interpretation, because you don't know what the correct interpretation is.

quote:

the fact i can still viably dispute your thesis using philosophy shows that it is relevant aswell as potentially contained in the issue (disregarding the fact that philosophy could be used to analyze everything and hence is relavant to everything and contained within everything).

You can "viably" dispute what, exactly? Your philosophy originally stated that the poet themselves can call an official interpretation, where I've merely used your own reasoning to suggest that this is not the case. What "ought" to be is merely abstract- it has no grounding in practicality. Any philosophy is irrelevant.

quote:

in your example the poet had a correct interpretation to the poem - his own. he first used his authority to dispute a false interpretation, and later used his authority to incorporate someone else's view.

No, that's distorting what I put. Either you misunderstand or you're changing it to suit your side. My example shows how the poet can gauge the accuracy of an interpretation, but not determine an ultimately "correct" one, simply because their own interpretation is not forced to be as correct as can be.

quote:

i never said the correct interpretation needs to be a static one.

A non-static correct interpretation is merely the same as saying many correct interpretations: in other words there is no one official interpretation because many can be accurate to some degree and there is no way of measuring that degree.

To say: "i claimed it has one correct interpretation" and then say that "one" apparently doesn't mean one, it means many is contradicting yourself.

quote:

erm... how far is "official" from "authority" in your view here?

Authority:
"An accepted source of expert information or advice"

quote:

i'm sorry, but i don't see how "there's absolutely nothing open to interpretation there" has absolutely fuck all to do with whether the creator of the work has the official interpretation to a work.

Well for a start, I didn't create that poem. I nicked it as a handy example, and I doubt my source was the first to type those words in that order. Which is exactly my point: it's just two phrases strung together in poetry form. There's nothing to interpret because there's no depth, no message, no art. It's a joke in the form of a poem. It was concieved as a play on words, and thus it was not created to suggest anything.

quote:

as to whether they are opposite to your first point that i should learn something about literature (which i perceived as a sarcastic way to say that i know nothing of literature) depends on whether i perceived you correctly: if i did, they are opposite; if i didn't, consider me as awaiting enlightenment.

Well they aren't opposite to that at all. You could say they're the opposite to the perlocutionary effect of my post (IE: your interpretation that I was stating the opposite to your post), but even then I've shown why this is not the case.

For the record, it wasn't a sarcastic version of "You know nothing" although I delivered it in a fairly acidic way. I said it because your post sounded like a generalisation that poets can lay down the law on what their poem means. Certainly there's nothing about non-static official (surely an oxymoron?) interpretations in your line of arguing.

Basically, it was picking a hole in one of a couple of things you got wrong. Another one is about physics: while it's true that mankind didn't invent how the universe runs physically, much of physics are human created theoretical models that fit the evidence. Nobody actually knows if light is really a wave at all, but it fits the model in certain experiments. Just little things that strike me as over-arrogant assumption in your general steamrolling of the poor bastard.

Emily Dickinson makes shitty trance tracks; I can tell you that much.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Basically, it was picking a hole in one of a couple of things you got wrong. Another one is about physics: while it's true that mankind didn't invent how the universe runs physically, much of physics are human created theoretical models that fit the evidence. Nobody actually knows if light is really a wave at all, but it fits the model in certain experiments. Just little things that strike me as over-arrogant assumption in your general steamrolling of the poor bastard.

I know you said I was wrong on almost everything I�ve claimed but this is exactly the point I was trying to make. You�ve just explained that a lot better.

Seriously Paul stop, you're embarrasing yourself man.

quote:

Originally posted by eckmek Seriously Paul stop, you're embarrasing yourself man.

Can you tell me, eckmek, how exactly do I embarass myself with the last post?

WTF?!!?!?!?!??!LOOOLLL Poems ,interpretations ?!?!!??looooll it's just DANCE MUSIC FFS!!!!!!!!


Chill-out people, why are you making your lives so hard and what's all these about "TEH REAL TRANCE" and "TEH FAKE TRANCE" LLOOOLLLLLLL, Yeah my Trance is Better than yoursss Give-me a break and stop acting like 13-year olds "my sega is better than your nintendo"...and really... this "genre" think is not very difficult to interpret is it???i mean to the point to start making false pseudo analogies to poetry and to lose yourself into pseudo-philosophical first-person phenomenological riddles (my colour perception is different than yours...).It's simple people...genres are agreements...they are not objective of their music they describe, rock bands don't "rock and roll" anymore...listen to Elvis,Pink Floyd, Slowdive, Nirvana and Sigur Ros what do they have in common...ermmmm except the quitar NOTHING AT ALL!!!!!

It's simple...someone back in the early 90s(some german lad(s) who really liked his/her/their pills)thought about taking "techno" and make it more hypnotic and melodic at the same time. From that idea "trance" was born.Take note that this transformation process was not essentially an "all-or-none" discreet event but probably a slow and continuous progression (much like evolution although this probably is much more linear).

Now because the "melodic" effect had a major impact to people, some lads thought about "maximising" the "melodic aspect" and leave the "rhythmic aspect" as it was. Further "melodic enhancements" though couldn't go hand-in-hand with funky "entrancing rhythmhs" and therefore,melodies were exaggerated through time, becoming more "Epic" and "cinematic" but at the cost of supressing the rhythms at the "back".In a matter of fact the higher-pitched synthy lead-lines should not be overshadowed by lower-pitched bass lines because they wouldn't have the strong effects they were planned to have in the first place.

This process (melodic exaggeration, rhytmic supression) finally led to the epic trance sound of 97 and therefore to todays ASOT trance. Is this "trance" trance???Well, it was directly developed from the "original trance" so yes, the industry and people thought "trance" was just fine for it. Also remember, that "trance" was the ONLY EDM genre that was largely based on melodic lead-lines in contrary to many other(all) EDM sub-genres which were based on rhythm, groove and funk so from that point, today's "ASOT/Anjuna Trance" fits the description just fine.

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 bu 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 o 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...

Oh...and a last think...your analogy woth poem intepretations is just IMPLAUSIBLE...poem interpretations (in case that hey exist because some poems just mean what they describe...like "romantic" poetry and NOT "symbolic")are influenced by A NUMBER of things like, single word meaning, line content, rhyme, whole poem content, melody and rhythm and many others (e.getting a different interpretation due to a word melodically fitting in the lower rather than the higher sentence)and it has NOTHING TO DO with simple and most of the times single all-or-none categorical decisions, that depend on 2-3 perceptual(rather than "Conceptual" which is poem intepretation) surface characteristics e.g. it has lead-line and fast beat it's trance not house...it has a heavily distorted quitar and beasty vocals it's death-metal etc....

"Trance" is a nice heavy bassline with no discernable melody. Which is why I like House.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Not really. It's an example of how someone else's interpretation may actually be closer to the meaning of the poem than the poet themselves can visualise. It merely suggests that the interpretation and how correct it is can be purely based on the person, which highlights why there is no correct interpretation, because you don't know what the correct interpretation is.

"closer to the (correct) meaning of the poem" suggests there is a correct interpretation.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J You can "viably" dispute what, exactly?

your thesis, as i said before. if you haven't noticed, most of this argument is utilizing philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Your philosophy originally stated that the poet themselves can call an official interpretation, where I've merely used your own reasoning to suggest that this is not the case. What "ought" to be is merely abstract- it has no grounding in practicality. Any philosophy is irrelevant.

please direct me to the post where you did that, i was just looking for one such post and noticed that almost all of your posts go "c" rather than "a+b=c".

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J No, that's distorting what I put. Either you misunderstand or you're changing it to suit your side. My example shows how the poet can gauge the accuracy of an interpretation, but not determine an ultimately "correct" one, simply because their own interpretation is not forced to be as correct as can be.

...accuracy of an interpretation in comparison with what? in reference to what?

i stipulate what = the correct interpretation.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J A non-static correct interpretation is merely the same as saying many correct interpretations: in other words there is no one official interpretation because many can be accurate to some degree and there is no way of measuring that degree. To say: "i claimed it has one correct interpretation" and then say that "one" apparently doesn't mean one, it means many is contradicting yourself.

no, a non-static correct interpretation means that it's one subject to change, either due to changing times and meanings, or due to the poet being too short-sighted when he came up with his first interpretation.

a dynamic-interpretation has nothing to do with many-correct-interpretations.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Authority: "An accepted source of expert information or advice"

Official:
"Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission."

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well for a start, I didn't create that poem. I nicked it as a handy example, and I doubt my source was the first to type those words in that order. Which is exactly my point: it's just two phrases strung together in poetry form. There's nothing to interpret because there's no depth, no message, no art. It's a joke in the form of a poem. It was concieved as a play on words, and thus it was not created to suggest anything.

it's an example of how my maxim is correct in reference to 'bad poetry'.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well they aren't opposite to that at all. You could say they're the opposite to the perlocutionary effect of my post (IE: your interpretation that I was stating the opposite to your post), but even then I've shown why this is not the case. quote: Originally posted by SYSTEM-J 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.

how can something be entirely down to the creator yet at the same breath, not something the creator can come up with?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Certainly there's nothing about non-static official (surely an oxymoron?) interpretations in your line of arguing.

it was implied, unmentioned to avoid redundancy, as i believe (most) objects not-in-a-vacuum can't (for the most part) be both static and correct.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Basically, it was picking a hole in one of a couple of things you got wrong. Another one is about physics: while it's true that mankind didn't invent how the universe runs physically, much of physics are human created theoretical models that fit the evidence. Nobody actually knows if light is really a wave at all, but it fits the model in certain experiments. Just little things that strike me as over-arrogant assumption in your general steamrolling of the poor bastard.

i meant that we didn't invent it - we discovered it. that's what i was laughing about.

quote:

quote: quote: Originally posted by Psy-T "closer to the (correct) meaning of the poem" suggests there is a correct interpretation. your thesis, as i said before. if you haven't noticed, most of this argument is utilizing philosophy. please direct me to the post where you did that, i was just looking for one such post and noticed that almost all of your posts go "c" rather than "a+b=c". ...accuracy of an interpretation in comparison with what? in reference to what? i stipulate what = the correct interpretation. no, a non-static correct interpretation means that it's one subject to change, either due to changing times and meanings, or due to the poet being too short-sighted when he came up with his first interpretation. a dynamic-interpretation has nothing to do with many-correct-interpretations. Official: "Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission." it's an example of how my maxim is correct in reference to 'bad poetry'. how can something be entirely down to the creator yet at the same breath, not something the creator can come up with? it was implied, unmentioned to avoid redundancy, as i believe (most) objects not-in-a-vacuum can't (for the most part) be both static and correct. i meant that we didn't invent it - we discovered it. that's what i was laughing about.

You are falling victim to the headstand falicy. you fail.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN WTF?!!?!?!?!??!LOOOLLL Poems ,interpretations ?!?!!??looooll it's just DANCE MUSIC FFS!!!!!!!! Chill-out people, why are you making your lives so hard

lolololololol we are chilled-out, we aren't making our lives hard. we are enjoying a discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN and what's all these about "TEH REAL TRANCE" and "TEH FAKE TRANCE" LLOOOLLLLLLL, Yeah my Trance is Better than yoursss Give-me a break and stop acting like 13-year olds "my sega is better than your nintendo"...

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'?
learn to read.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN and really... this "genre" think is not very difficult to interpret is it???i mean to the point to start making false pseudo analogies to poetry and to lose yourself into pseudo-philosophical first-person phenomenological riddles (my colour perception is different than yours...).It's simple people...genres are agreements...they are not objective of their music they describe, rock bands don't "rock and roll" anymore...listen to Elvis,Pink Floyd, Slowdive, Nirvana and Sigur Ros what do they have in common...ermmmm except the quitar NOTHING AT ALL!!!!! It's simple...someone back in the early 90s(some german lad(s) who really liked his/her/their pills)thought about taking "techno" and make it more hypnotic and melodic at the same time. From that idea "trance" was born.Take note that this transformation process was not essentially an "all-or-none" discreet event but probably a slow and continuous progression (much like evolution although this probably is much more linear). Now because the "melodic" effect had a major impact to people, some lads thought about "maximising" the "melodic aspect" and leave the "rhythmic aspect" as it was. Further "melodic enhancements" though couldn't go hand-in-hand with funky "entrancing rhythmhs" and therefore,melodies were exaggerated through time, becoming more "Epic" and "cinematic" but at the cost of supressing the rhythms at the "back".In a matter of fact the higher-pitched synthy lead-lines should not be overshadowed by lower-pitched bass lines because they wouldn't have the strong effects they were planned to have in the first place. This process (melodic exaggeration, rhytmic supression) finally led to the epic trance sound of 97 and therefore to todays ASOT trance. Is this "trance" trance???Well, it was directly developed from the "original trance" so yes, the industry and people thought "trance" was just fine for it. Also remember, that "trance" was the ONLY EDM genre that was largely based on melodic lead-lines in contrary to many other(all) EDM sub-genres which were based on rhythm, groove and funk so from that point, today's "ASOT/Anjuna Trance" fits the description just fine. 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 bu 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 o 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...

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

quote:

Originally posted by Boomer187 You are falling victim to the headstand falicy. you fail.

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN Oh...and a last think...your analogy woth poem intepretations is just IMPLAUSIBLE...poem interpretations (in case that hey exist because some poems just mean what they describe...like "romantic" poetry and NOT "symbolic")are influenced by A NUMBER of things like, single word meaning, line content, rhyme, whole poem content, melody and rhythm and many others (e.getting a different interpretation due to a word melodically fitting in the lower rather than the higher sentence)and it has NOTHING TO DO with simple and most of the times single all-or-none categorical decisions, that depend on 2-3 perceptual(rather than "Conceptual" which is poem intepretation) surface characteristics e.g. it has lead-line and fast beat it's trance not house...it has a heavily distorted quitar and beasty vocals it's death-metal etc....

the issue of poetry we're now discussing has nothing to do with it's first mentions in the thread, we're not talking about it in reference to the central issue of genres and we haven't been for quite a while.
as i said, learn to read.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T

you ever look at your replies and say.... damn thats a lotta words

quote:

Originally posted by Boomer187 you ever look at your replies and say.... damn thats a lotta words

my longest post here is around 200 words
i think i saw one that had more than 500 though

oh, and no, i don't at my posts

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T "closer to the (correct) meaning of the poem" suggests there is a correct interpretation.

Er... which example are you referring to? The one I labelled "An example" doesn't contain that quote at all.

quote:

your thesis, as i said before. if you haven't noticed, most of this argument is utilizing philosophy.

I've only utilising it to dispel it.

quote:

please direct me to the post where you did that, i was just looking for one such post and noticed that almost all of your posts go "c" rather than "a+b=c".

"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."

Which I expanded in various other posts with lines to the effect of "There's no actual way of knowing what is the correct interpretation". But that bit there is the reasoning.

quote:

...accuracy of an interpretation in comparison with what? in reference to what? i stipulate what = the correct interpretation.

The what would be the poet's own interpretation. I've not suggested that the poet themselves will not have a good idea of what they themselves were aiming for, but I've shown that even a poet's interpretation may not be totally correct, and there's no way of knowing.

quote:

no, a non-static correct interpretation means that it's one subject to change, either due to changing times and meanings, or due to the poet being too short-sighted when he came up with his first interpretation.

It's not an issue of "short-sightedness". How you interpret anything is down to your personal experiences, memories and general personality. If you write a general description of a room, in poetry or prose (general because poetic imagery doesn't usually go "There were contempory leather sofas of Swedish design, black in colour, placed along the South-west wall opposite the window") and ask ten people to draw the room, you'll get ten different pictures. If you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable, someone else might actually draw a more cosy and comfortable room than what you have pictured.

quote:

a dynamic-interpretation has nothing to do with many-correct-interpretations.

But you've been suggesting that the poet's interpretation is correct. The poet will only produce one interpretation, based on their own personality. If changing times and meanings can change the "correct" interpretation, then after a while the poet will become incorrect, especially if they die. If you examine old poetry you get archaic terms and words which mean very different things now. This suggests that the common consensus of a word meaning becomes the yard-stick of correctness.

quote:

Official: "Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission."

Words can have many meanings, and I know perfectly well which one I was using: the definition I quoted (from a dictionary).

quote:

it's an example of how my maxim is correct in reference to 'bad poetry'

Didn't you say earlier than exceptions don't prove rules? If your maxim is correct with regards to that quality of poetry, there's a strong argument that it doesn't even apply to literature at all.

quote:

how can something be entirely down to the creator yet at the same breath, not something the creator can come up with?

The poet can be philosophical and say that there's an ultimately accurate interpretation out there. Or they could do what all poets do and say that there's no one correct interpretation. It's entirely down to them.

quote:

it was implied, unmentioned to avoid redundancy, as i believe (most) objects not-in-a-vacuum can't (for the most part) be both static and correct.

Eh? Are you applying the Theory of Relativity to poetry?

quote:

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

Because of the Russian Ballerina.

How does it go...

A reporter asks about the meaning of a part of the Ballerina's performance.

To which she replies:

'If I could say that in words, I wouldnt take the very great trouble of dancing it for you would I?'

Morale of the Story:

Words and Names are never perfect or even adequate mediums through which to convey meaning. Tending towards perfecting genre names is thus a waste of fucking time when you could just open your ears and listen instead.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Er... which example are you referring to? The one I labelled "An example" doesn't contain that quote at all.

i'm not referring to an example, i'm referring to what you wrote here:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Not really. It's an example of how someone else's interpretation may actually be closer to the meaning of the poem than the poet themselves can visualise. It merely suggests that the interpretation and how correct it is can be purely based on the person, which highlights why there is no correct interpretation, because you don't know what the correct interpretation is.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I've only utilising it to dispel it.

does that 'not count' in some bizarre way?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J "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." Which I expanded in various other posts with lines to the effect of "There's no actual way of knowing what is the correct interpretation". But that bit there is the reasoning.

this is all assuming i'm arguing for one correct static interpretation, which is not the case.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The what would be the poet's own interpretation. I've not suggested that the poet themselves will not have a good idea of what they themselves were aiming for, but I've shown that even a poet's interpretation may not be totally correct, and there's no way of knowing.

i'd like to recall a previous point about this:

quote:

Say the poet uses the word "garden" at a point. ...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."

"That view is closer to what I was intending than I actually see in my poem.", hence it's not in the poem.

sorry i missed it before.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It's not an issue of "short-sightedness". How you interpret anything is down to your personal experiences, memories and general personality.

all of which are subject.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If you write a general description of a room, in poetry or prose (general because poetic imagery doesn't usually go "There were contempory leather sofas of Swedish design, black in colour, placed along the South-west wall opposite the window") and ask ten people to draw the room, you'll get ten different pictures. If you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable

this may be a misunderstanding, but: if you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable you would convey that to the people drawing the room via the poem.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J someone else might actually draw a more cosy and comfortable room than what you have pictured.

hence it's not in the poem.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But you've been suggesting that the poet's interpretation is correct. The poet will only produce one interpretation, based on their own personality.

the poet will only produce one interpretation, based on their own personal experiences, memories and general personality which are obviously subject to change, and change that interpretation to accord with the changes in his personal experiences, memories, and general personality...

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If changing times and meanings can change the "correct" interpretation, then after a while the poet will become incorrect, especially if they die. If you examine old poetry you get archaic terms and words which mean very different things now. This suggests that the common consensus of a word meaning becomes the yard-stick of correctness.

that rules out the changing times and meanings as a factor that affects the 'correct' interpretation (based on observation - the Iliad still means the same thing it did way back when for the most part, because it is read in context).

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Didn't you say earlier than exceptions don't prove rules? If your maxim is correct with regards to that quality of poetry, there's a strong argument that it doesn't even apply to literature at all.

but it was not proven to be an exception as of yet, so far it's just an instance supporting the maxim's validity.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The poet can be philosophical and say that there's an ultimately accurate interpretation out there. Or they could do what all poets do and say that there's no one correct interpretation. It's entirely down to them.

being the egoistic creatures we are i'd say it's more likely the poet will hold his own interpretation to be the correct one (and this is a main point where we should appeal to philosophy to see whether he'd be right in doing so or not. luckily we're already debating that - so please don't neglect that aspect which i believe is the most important in this debate).

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Eh? Are you applying the Theory of Relativity to poetry?

apparently so. why?

Seriously what is this dick measuring contest you have going on here? Step back and look at just how far you have deviated from the original topic and how it has become more an issue of endless 1-upmanship instead of music and art.

pffff.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Words and Names are never perfect or even adequate mediums through which to convey meaning. Tending towards perfecting genre names is thus a waste of fucking time when you could just open your ears and listen instead.

"Words and Names are never perfect or even adequate mediums through which to convey meaning", hence using genre names is a waste of fucking time. yet you are here posting on a trance board.
hypocrisy.

quote:

Originally posted by Derivative Seriously what is this dick measuring contest you have going on here? Step back and look at just how far you have deviated from the original topic and how it has become more an issue of endless 1-upmanship instead of music and art. pffff.

no, it has become an aesthetics discussion. exactly what i was hoping for.

Uh huh. Sure thing buddy. Whatever you say.

I'm gonna go and make some tunes...Have fun with your ruler.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i'm not referring to an example, i'm referring to what you wrote here

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.

quote:

does that 'not count' in some bizarre way?

Well it comes to the same conclusion as taking a practical outlook, so the philosophy seems irrelevant to me.

Reality = Philosophy/Philosophy
=> Reality = 1

quote:

this is all assuming i'm arguing for one correct static interpretation, which is not the case.

It's not the case now. There was nothing for several posts even mentioning static or dynamic.

quote:

i'd like to recall a previous point about this: "That view is closer to what I was intending than I actually see in my poem.", hence it's not in the poem. sorry i missed it before.

It's in the poem if you put it there. No interpretations are in the poem- only the words which can suggest them.

quote:

all of which are subject.

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.

quote:

This may be a misunderstanding, but: if you were intending this room you've described to be conveyed as cosy and comfortable you would convey that to the people drawing the room via the poem. hence it's not in the poem.

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.

quote:

the poet will only produce one interpretation, based on their own personal experiences, memories and general personality which are obviously subject to change, and change that interpretation to accord with the changes in his personal experiences, memories, and general personality...

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

quote:

that rules out the changing times and meanings as a factor that affects the 'correct' interpretation (based on observation - the Iliad still means the same thing it did way back when for the most part, because it is read in context).

But you just said otherwise:

quote:

no, a non-static correct interpretation means that it's one subject to change, either due to changing times and meanings, or due to the poet being too short-sighted when he came up with his first interpretation.

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.

quote:

but it was not proven to be an exception as of yet, so far it's just an instance supporting the maxim's validity.

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.

quote:

being the egoistic creatures we are i'd say it's more likely the poet will hold his own interpretation to be the correct one (and this is a main point where we should appeal to philosophy to see whether he'd be right in doing so or not. luckily we're already debating that - so please don't neglect that aspect which i believe is the most important in this debate).

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.

quote:

apparently so. why?

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.

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