Seriously Paul stop, you're embarrasing yourself man.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by teegee sometimes, i sit on my hand until its numb and then masturbate...i call that a stranger.

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?

___________________
"All revolutions are the sheerest fantasies until they happen; then they become historical inevitabilities."

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.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

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?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

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

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

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.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T

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