You said, and I quote:

"To wit: commercial music, by its very definition, is very simple, tepid, watered down, safe and boring."

Now you're saying:

"Success never goes to the inventor, but to the exploiter of the invention."

When did I ever, ever, fucking ever argue against that? What I'm arguing against is the first quote, which is something you haven't defended in the slightest.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Yes, those two quotes compliment each other quite nicely, don't they?

Now answer the fucking questions, J.

The questions are irrelevant. Yes Ishkur, you are right in your cutting observation that people who invent shit don't usually get the credit, but that does not automatically equate to all commercial music being bland, watered down, tepid safe and boring, does it?

What kind of fucking syllogism is that? All those people who invented new genres were standing on the shoulders of giants too, you know. They didn't just materialise styles of music out of thin air. So by a bit of logical extension, all music is very simple, tepid, watered down, safe and boring because it owes its existence to someone else influencing it in the first place. Therefore, your comment does not apply because it is a universal application to music, you are fucking wrong and we all go to the after-party.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

dominant designs (best-sellers, mass-consumer goods,etc) such as music compositions, toasters, computer programs, etc., are by their very nature consensus designs. what that means is that every consumer that purchases that design makes a trade off as to their personal needs of the product. when many people do this, the dominant design satisfies many people, but only does it adequately. each consumer is not satisfied to the fullest. so dominant designs do tend to be safe, bland, and defintely not daring. they must satisfy many, otherwise they will fail as mass consumer goods.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J So by a bit of logical extension, all music is very simple, tepid, watered down, safe and boring because it owes its existence to someone else influencing it in the first place. Therefore, your comment does not apply because it is a universal application to music, you are fucking wrong and we all go to the after-party.

So really, no artiste sits down and rips a brand new genre out of the air whilst writing, its a combination of their influences. Example; Hendrix was a mainly blues-inspired guy. His playing & writing technique was outlandish & spectacular and took guitar playing and guitar music to new unchartered heights.
Question for the Ish of all knowledge; Does that make his music innovative as he introduced new elements, or does it make it tepid and watered down becuase his main sound was blues that had by then (late 1960's) become popular due to the influx of white British artistes?

___________________
*** Sig edited -> image exceeds width restrictionhttp://www.freakonline.co.uk/freaksig2.gif

quote:

Originally posted by tiestoisgod So really, no artiste sits down and rips a brand new genre out of the air whilst writing, its a combination of their influences. Example; Hendrix was a mainly blues-inspired guy. His playing & writing technique was outlandish & spectacular and took guitar playing and guitar music to new unchartered heights. Question for the Ish of all knowledge; Does that make his music innovative as he introduced new elements, or does it make it tepid and watered down becuase his main sound was blues that had by then (late 1960's) become popular due to the influx of white British artistes?

haha, wow very insightful and poignant question from "tiestoisgod".

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J commercial music

Right. Commercial music. Meaning music made, right from the outset, as specifically to be the most commercially appealing. Sell the most. B enjoyed by the greatest number of people.

How do you make something that EVERYBODY will like? .....you make it boring and inoffensive. Nice. Safe. Plain.

The inventor makes something new. Unique. Great. Wonderful. A smattering of people like it, but nothing to really shake the foundations of society....the exploiter of the inventor takes it ANNNNNND _______________ (you fill in the blanks. Here's some hints: What happens in the translation, from innovator to exploiter? Is the end product better? Do more people like it? Is it a worthy extension of the original, or a cheap knockoff?)

So....let me re-iterate:

A form of music, by accident, becomes moderately successful..........the commercial industry sees this trend. Then what happens?

Come on, connect the dots. I don't want to lead you by the hand through this.

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur Right. Commercial music. Meaning music made, right from the outset, as specifically to be the most commercially appealing. Sell the most. B enjoyed by the greatest number of people. How do you make something that EVERYBODY will like? .....you make it boring and inoffensive. Nice. Safe. Plain. So....let me re-iterate: A form of music, by accident, becomes moderately successful..........the commercial industry sees this trend. Then what happens? Come on, connect the dots. I don't want to lead you by the hand through this.

oh oh oh i know this one.
it starts to suck

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur Right. Commercial music. Meaning music made, right from the outset, as specifically to be the most commercially appealing. Sell the most. B enjoyed by the greatest number of people.

Er... I assumed we were talking about music with high sales. Otherwise I'm not sure why you brought commercial music into the thread.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

max walder - crown has a long build up. i think its great. =P

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Er... I assumed we were talking about music with high sales. Otherwise I'm not sure why you brought commercial music into the thread.

Yeah, I only "brought commercial music" into this thread 4 fucking pages ago.

PAY. FUCKING. ATTENTION.

god, it's like trying to teach physics to a dog.

So are you going to anwser my Hendrix question Ishkur, or is it a bit too much of a head twister because it doesnt fit your model? Or do you just like throwing shit at System J and are too important to entertain q's from lower-ranked TA's like me?

___________________
*** Sig edited -> image exceeds width restrictionhttp://www.freakonline.co.uk/freaksig2.gif