|
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
No I don't! You are unique in your ability to reply to something I've never written, and then to enter into this absurd meta-argument when I try and tell you that you've completely missed the point.
I'm going to recap this once, but if you make another irrelevant reply then consider this over, because as much as I like keeping my own mix on the front page I don't want to go down the rabbit hole about such a minor issue.
I told you how idiosyncratic your interpretation of rhythmic intensity was, and used the example of how most people would interpret the intensity of these tracks, using the example of their natural, physical response to the respective rhythms of the two sets of tracks. Play one of these drum 'n bass tracks and people would slow right down, responding to the 80bpm elements because they dictate the energy level in the tracks, the double-time drum spasms being more ear candy. Play a Timewriter track at 125bpm and people would dance with more energy. This would happen on just about any dancefloor. You need to get over the word "dancefloor" and stop jumping to conclusions about what the point is (something you do often). I've no idea, for instance, at what point you got any kind of conception I was talking about "isolated" situations, given I'm talking in complete generalities, and my phrasing could scarcely have made that more clear.
Also, I've just asked you about why your explanation of rhythmic intensity wouldn't apply on a dancefloor - why mere drum hits per square inch dictate intensity on a mixtape, but apparently not when it comes to a club. You completely, utterly, did not respond to that point at all. Not even close.
I think most people are quite prone to being dragged off-topic when it comes to a debate, particularly because most people develop their technique from verbal discussion where there is no written record of the thread of conversation, and I have always been very careful not to get dragged away from my own actual point. You seem to think that's game-playing, but I suspect you are merely very prone to misinterpretation or to jumping to quick conclusions and you're not used to someone who doesn't come along for the ride. |
I fail to see how these dancefloor analogies, yes I used the term again, have any impact on my initial point regarding intensity. Because I've said from the beginning that it doesn't solely rely on on track tempo. How intensely people dance to a record has less to do with track intensity and more to do with tempo. A classical or downtempo track can be extremely intense sonically but people wouldn't dance to it very intensively when compared to a 130 bpm minimal track or whatever.
That's why I make a clear distinction between listening format and dancefloor mechanics. Which you're breaking because it happens to fit your argument. I'm not playing.
The only reason I brought up the percussion density because i's a clear example on how you can lose intensity even without changing the actual tempo. I also never intended to imply that it wouldn't work the same way on a dancefloor, I've disputed this from the beginning and the it's only because you attacked me for misunderstanding you that I started to assume you must have been talking about multiple isolated situations, which you then confirmed creating even more confusion. If your argument is that playing this set as it is on a dancefloor would have people dancing more intensely at the climax then I would still disagree, but it's irrelevant to my point. Because i believe climatic moments can be more the just "more danceable then the rest of the set".
Again, I don't have a problem with how you progressed through different beat formats throughout this mix, I think there was room for a longer and bigger climax which I think would have made the set more intense and complete. That is all.
___________________
Mixes: Alaé (Conceptional ambient dub)
AOTSE (Experimental)
Listens:
http://www.last.fm/user/bierheld
|
