|
Help me understand what happened to Trance... (pg. 16)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kapedan
:stongue: |
lol i stole that from Adam Sandler in Big Daddy...love that part.:p |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Oh dear, these trance people...they are holy, very nice and down to earth, they are just earning TONES of money FOR DOING nothing...that's the problem these days!And you know...earning so much with so LITTLE effort doesn't make you want to try harder...it just makes you comfortable and numb.
|
crikey, what the hell prompted you to say this. I never said they were holy, I said they were humble, modest, not full of themselves. It isn't the musicians that go on these campaigns preaching how trance is going to change the world, that is stuff that overzealous fans do. The actual musicians are quite modest, they aren't comparing themselves to mozart, that is something that fans are doing. Trance fans make the music into something it is not, the musicians themselves are acutally quite humble about it. How can this music be bound with intentions of pretending to be something its not, when the actual people who make the stuff aren't acting nearly that obnoxious? Some of them have openly admittied that they make pop music, and nobody thinks any less of them for that, yet we still go out with this "lying to themselves" campaign. Just talk to one of them, they are surprisingly easy to reach, and they arent trying to say their music is anything greater than what it is(most of them anyway), that is something the fans do. |
|
|
| kr00t0n |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0915
crikey, what the hell prompted you to say this. I never said they were holy, I said they were humble, modest, not full of themselves. It isn't the musicians that go on these campaigns preaching how trance is going to change the world, that is stuff that overzealous fans do. The actual musicians are quite modest, they aren't comparing themselves to mozart, that is something that fans are doing. Trance fans make the music into something it is not, the musicians themselves are acutally quite humble about it. How can this music be bound with intentions of pretending to be something its not, when the actual people who make the stuff aren't acting nearly that obnoxious? Some of them have openly admittied that they make pop music, and nobody thinks any less of them for that, yet we still go out with this "lying to themselves" campaign. Just talk to one of them, they are surprisingly easy to reach, and they arent trying to say their music is anything greater than what it is(most of them anyway), that is something the fans do. |
I concur 100% |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Donkeyness
If you can't beat 'em, insult 'em and make yourself look like a fool. |
I have beaten him before, and unbelievably I got "you're just arguing for the sake of it" as my reply. What the would you know anyway?
Oh, and the last twice you've tried debating with me you ran off without answering my posts. But of course, it's not like you ever resort to questioning my intelligence before firing off some of your debate jargon you learned at college to try and make your ty logic flow. I guess you're a bad influence.
One more thing: remember the legalised drug argument we had? You know the Dutch are clamping down on their lax alcohol laws after under-age drinking has become a major problem there, and are also strongly considering making cannabis illegal due to the problems it's causing? Turns out that everything I said was true, as evidenced by the very country you used as an example.
Now piss off and go get banned again for being socially inept. |
|
|
| A.J. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0915
crikey, what the hell...... |
Nice use of the lingo!
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Ishkur |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I have beaten him before |
J, you haven't beaten jack ing , because you've never actually proposed an actual argument of your own volition before. All you do is complain about other people's complaints because you find it easier to argue in their backyard, which is funny because I've still crushed you, pal. Time and time again. Because I actually take risks and voice my opinion. You do not.
You are a shining example of that Neil Stephenson quote, always itching to get the last word in, so arguing with you is an exercise in futility since you're not interested in answers or solutions, only in prolonging the argument which helps no one and wastes everybodies time because, beneath it all, you're an egregious attention whore in denial and I'm not going to play this game with you anymore. Either bring something to the table, or shut the up about how big your internet penis is.
If Bill Watterson can be right, so can I. |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
| quote: | Originally posted by A.J.
|
heh, that guy is my hero :)
but beleive it or not, I developed my habit for using those words from the internet, and not from him.
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
You are a shining example of that Neil Stephenson quote, always itching to get the last word in, so arguing with you is an exercise in futility since you're not interested in answers or solutions, only in prolonging the argument which helps no one and wastes everybodies time because, beneath it all, you're an egregious attention whore in denial and I'm not going to play this game with you anymore. Either bring something to the table, or shut the up about how big your internet penis is.
|
in light of this linked artile
im gonna stop |
|
|
| BlueFear |
| quote: | Originally posted by peking_duck
The reason I write this is because I am seeing Paul Van Dyk this friday night at my favourite club. There will be over 2000 people there and the setup of this club is incredible. Perfect design, amazing lighting show and the most unbelievable sound system. But... I have this sinking feeling in my stomach that the set will be nothing like "Live at Energy 2003". |
Not musically related, I hope you don't get dissaponited when you see him mixing with a couple of laptops. Quite offtopic, but, reading your post, it came to my mind write that.... |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ishkur
J, you haven't beaten jack ing , because you've never actually proposed an actual argument of your own volition before. All you do is complain about other people's complaints because you find it easier to argue in their backyard, which is funny because I've still crushed you, pal. Time and time again. Because I actually take risks and voice my opinion. You do not. |
Oh don't talk . You don't take any risks. You present the cleanest, most inapplicable world views possible and argue on vague terms. If anyone presents any specifics, you just twist and turn and try and make out you were saying something you didn't say. Remember that massive ing argument with Yaletrance (or whatever he's changed his name to)? He kicked your ass over and over and you brought up more and more little points, more generalisations, and he just knocked them back down. American trance is more "masculine"? Yeah, that sounded good for the three posts it took to demolish it.
I've complained about your cack-handed method of winding up the entire of TA a lot because the few times I actually bothered to present a genuinely different view you just did what you've done in this thread- shout out your version of reality and keep twisting and turning with stuff like: "you're agreeing with me". The arguments not related to trance were quite pathetic. You gave a definition of something, and when I provided an alternative definition which ed yours over you just ran away. Or that one about football, in which you essentially screamed the same thing over and over, a thing which was a classic example of how you avoid the reality of something in favour of the fake, easy-to-argue version in your head.
| quote: | | You are a shining example of that Neil Stephenson quote, always itching to get the last word in, so arguing with you is an exercise in futility since you're not interested in answers or solutions, only in prolonging the argument which helps no one and wastes everybodies time because, beneath it all, you're an egregious attention whore in denial and I'm not going to play this game with you anymore. Either bring something to the table, or shut the up about how big your internet penis is. |
You're the guy who frequently makes posts aproaching 1000 words, filled with your overly wordy, energy-wasting soliloquies. You're the guy who I've watched stretch arguments to well over 20 pages, before saying "I argue because I can. Where the argument goes is immaterial to me." You're a ing hypocrite, and you waste more of your life in this kind of petty debate than I ever have. In this thread alone, you're repeating an argument you've been shovelling for well over half a decade: the same bollocks in slightly different wording. The amount of hours and key-presses and bytes you've devoted to repeating yourself in the quest for attention is absolutely ridiculous. And you have the balls to drop that quote on me? Get ed. It wouldn't ring so hollow if you'd ever actually do something constructive with your time: like bother putting down the other argument rather than quoting the easily answerable bits and seizing the floor for the kind of self-centred ramblings Hamlet would drop his jaw at.
Now. Decisions, decisions. Do you reply to this in full glory, demonstrating how much time you clearly have to waste, or do you make some above-it-all comment to show me that you're too mature and have lost too much hair to continue stooping to this level? We all know the only winner on the Internet is the guy who walks away with the last standing word. |
|
|
| kr00t0n |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
You're the guy who frequently makes posts aproaching 1000 words, filled with your overly wordy, energy-wasting soliloquies. You're the guy who I've watched stretch arguments to well over 20 pages, before saying "I argue because I can. Where the argument goes is immaterial to me." You're a ing hypocrite, and you waste more of your life in this kind of petty debate than I ever have. In this thread alone, you're repeating an argument you've been shovelling for well over half a decade: the same bollocks in slightly different wording. The amount of hours and key-presses and bytes you've devoted to repeating yourself in the quest for attention is absolutely ridiculous. And you have the balls to drop that quote on me? Get ed. It wouldn't ring so hollow if you'd ever actually do something constructive with your time: like bother putting down the other argument rather than quoting the easily answerable bits and seizing the floor for the kind of self-centred ramblings Hamlet would drop his jaw at.
|
Well, he did put all that effort into his beloved guide ;) |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by kr00t0n
Well, he did put all that effort into his beloved guide ;) |
What he does on his site isn't important. It's what he does here, and elsewhere. Where he goes and signs up an account and takes the time to look for threads like this so he can do the same thing over and over. You wouldn't believe how far he's gone on the Internet spreading his message. Some guy linked to an old trance compilation purchase page on a small website, and guess who wrote the first customer review? Any idea what it read like? Yeah, like every other Ishkur rant on the 'Net. |
|
|
| Stasis |
I'll add something to the table.
Ishkur's analysis of the situation is completely personalized, subjective and cannot be taken as any sort of logical argument. Let me explain.
When I first started reading this thread, I saw a lot of arguments along these lines:
1) Classic trance was much more emotional and passionate. Songs X, Y, and Z are my evidence of that. Modern "trance" is much worse.
2) Modern trance still rules. Songs A, B, and C are evidence of that.
Of course, most people recognize that those aren't actually arguments -just opinions. They only contain anecdotes about individual songs or vague, personal terms in their attempts to analyze a bigger, more complex cultural change. No big deal.
I saw a problem, however, when Ishkur jumped in and started using what appears to be objective thinking to conclude that classic trance definitely was something good, while modern trance is crap. Ishkur doesn't just name songs, or vague personal qualities like "emotional, passionate, or bad-ass," to justify his arguments, so on the surface, they look like more reasonable conclusions.
Instead of saying, "Classic trance was better because it was more 'emotional' or because song X really rocked," Ishkur used arugments like this:
1) Modern trance is crap because it is formulaic and mass-marketed.
My problem arises because people are more likely to believe that Ishkur just made an objective analysis of the situation. The truth, however, is that Ishkur's analysis is on the exact same level of subjectivenes as the tranceaddict who says, "modern trance is great because it's so emotional!" (Or some other vague, personal term.)
At first, terms like formulaic and mass-marketed look like real criteria for judging music. If something is formulaic or mass-marketed, then it must be worse than something that is not. The point I was trying to make in my previous posts (and I see that I failed, I admit) was that because of our own nostalgic and romantic connections to this music, making objective conclusions on the trends of this culture are impossible.
Terms like formulaic and mass-marketed are loaded criteria that give the illusion of an objective analysis, but they are truly subjective. Let's fully agree that today's "trance" is entirely formulaic and mass-marketed. It is just as plausible that if classic trance was formulaic and mass-marketed, we could romanticize those qualities and decry modern trance for being random, or too niche-driven. It would be easy to imagine Ishkur lamenting about "how you used to be able to hear a song at a dance and know just when the vocals were about to come in every time, ah, the good old days." Or he could be saying, "Remember when we used to be able to go to the club and know that everyone was going to be able to sing along to every song, since we had each just bought the CD, those were the days." Many adults romanticize about mass-marketed pop culture in the Beatles era, or even mass-media in the 3-network TV days, just for an example of this actually happening in reality.
When Ishkur says something is crap because it is contains apparently objective and negative qualities, just know that they are anything but. They are products of a romanticized vision of the past that is no more well-reasoned or analyzed than the average tranceaddict's praise of Tiesto's latest concert.
In conclusion, I'd just like to remind everyone, especially Ishkur, that I'm not actually even disagreeing with his points. I'm just trying to remind everyone that they're fundamentally arguing over inescablably personal visions, and that no matter how objective the language someone tries to use in justifying their condemnation or praise of a recent musical trend, it's all just a product of their own nostalgic and romantized experiences. Forgive me if I never chose a "side of the fence," Ishkur, but my point was that the fence doesnt exist. |
|
|
|
|
