|
Stimming Reflections Album (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jasperovitsj |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
Being laughed at by TA is actually pretty funny. More importantly you should be questioning the rather ty internet culture you follow, the real world outside of TA laughs at you daily, think about it. :disbelief |
Dude, seriously? :wtf:
As for the album. I liked quite a few tracks, disliked others. The production quality is there, but just like Clovis mentioned the ideas are lacking at times. And production quality alone can't save the album, not even when I'm into the "right resolution" :stongue: As a whole, the album was slightly disappointing to me, but I will be playing a few individual tracks for a long time. |
|
|
| Dj_Es-Dva |
| quote: | Originally posted by Guest
I only sampled it but I noticed that the first 4 or 5 tracks in the link I gave sounded pretty much the same. Its really hard for EDM guys to do an artist album and not fall into this trap. |
Yeah that sums me up too. :) |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
me, you need a lesson in what dynamic music really sounds like. |
By saying that track isn't a dynamic piece of music, you obviously have no clue. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
By saying that track isn't a dynamic piece of music, you obviously have no clue. |
Because quite obviously your unbiased, scientific view on this album is the correct one, and quite obviously the way lots of other people were bored or disappointed by this record, even people who had been looking forward to it, supports your position as the only viably correct one.
Despite the fact you defined dynamic in this context as a track "going places", if you skip from about two minutes in, which is when the track has done with the DJ-friendly intro, to the last minute, you'll hear it sounds near enough identical, with one or two extra layers thrown in. Meaning that the track barely "goes anywhere" at all. Now I'm sure you'll mention all those ultra-ing-deep "nuances" at this point, but a track that repeats the same ideas for five minutes with only subtle variations on it is not "dynamic" and it is not "going somewhere".
A track that sounds very different by the end or ends on a different mood to what it began on... that's a dynamic track. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Because quite obviously your unbiased, scientific view on this album is the correct one, and quite obviously the way lots of other people were bored or disappointed by this record, even people who had been looking forward to it, supports your position as the only viably correct one.
Despite the fact you defined dynamic in this context as a track "going places", if you skip from about two minutes in, which is when the track has done with the DJ-friendly intro, to the last minute, you'll hear it sounds near enough identical, with one or two extra layers thrown in. Meaning that the track barely "goes anywhere" at all. Now I'm sure you'll mention all those ultra-ing-deep "nuances" at this point, but a track that repeats the same ideas for five minutes with only subtle variations on it is not "dynamic" and it is not "going somewhere".
A track that sounds very different by the end or ends on a different mood to what it began on... that's a dynamic track. |
I didn't say my opinion was scientific, nor did I say my opinion the correct one, I asked the people who gave an Album in which the producer likely worked on for quite a few months, to give a bit more than their insufficient reviews. I didn't force my opinion on anyone, I just disagreed. I questioned them through dialogue, I even acknowledged if I skimmed through this album, I too would probably find it boring/repetitive.
And I didn't quite define dynamic in my statement that you thought I defined it. | quote: | | I think its a great dynamic piece of music. It has thought, even though it maintains the poise and wisdom of a tribe leader, it manages to go places. |
You see the period? The first statement ends at the period. The next sentence is another statement that doesn't define the previous one. If I used a comma to seperate the statements, then we might be closer to the post comma statement helping define the first statement.
And now onto your mistakes, first one is saying a fairly dynamic piece of music is not dynamic and I need a lesson on dynamics, even though the track is truly dynamic, and then your second mistake, which is connected to your first, you were suppose to give me a lesson on what a dynamic track is, yet you showed through your definition you really don't have a clue about what makes a track dynamic. You know what you really defined? Something entirely different. A track can be exactly and purely what you defined below, and not be dynamic at all.
| quote: |
A track that sounds very different by the end or ends on a different mood to what it began on... that's a dynamic track. |
^This does not make a dynamic track. Since you were cocky and wanted to give a lesson, i'm going to let you clench onto that statement a bit, dig a little deeper, before I pull up with the yellow school bus, and end up giving the lesson. In the meantime, I'll let you explain how what you said defines a dynamic piece of music. :tongue2 |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
I was using the only thing close to a definition in your post. I'd say it's a fair assumption that a sentence saying "It's a dynamic track" and then another sentence describing that track could be linked. But apparently you called it dynamic and then made a list of completely seperate characteristics. Okay, sure.
If we're not taking the definition of dynamic as "going somewhere" then let's consult the dictionary, eh?
dy⋅nam⋅ic
/daɪˈnæmɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dahy-nam-ik] Show IPA
–adjective Also, dy⋅nam⋅i⋅cal.
1. pertaining to or characterized by energy or effective action; vigorously active or forceful; energetic: the dynamic president of the firm.
2. Physics.
a. of or pertaining to force or power.
b. of or pertaining to force related to motion.
3. pertaining to the science of dynamics.
4. of or pertaining to the range of volume of musical sound.
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic...c&search=search
Now I'll assume that you aren't saying that a plodding piece of deep house is characterised by energy or vigorous activity, nor force or power. Unless you're an incredibly boring soul, that is. So I can only assume you are characterising this piece as dynamic in terms of the loudness and softness of different elements and sounds in the track and they interrelate, unless you're just inventing subjective meanings of "dynamic" and calling people clueless for not agreeing with you.
In which case, I'll counter your statement that a track can be exactly as I described and not be dynamic at all by saying that a track can be very dynamic by that definition and still be incredibly dull. So saying "How can it be boring? It's so dynamic!" just makes you sound like a music tech geek. There's more to good music than production. Perhaps your inordinate appreciation for this record stems from the fact you admit to sharing many of the ideas on display as a producer. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
But anyhow, im over it. |
Clearly. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I was using the only thing close to a definition in your post. I'd say it's a fair assumption that a sentence saying "It's a dynamic track" and then another sentence describing that track could be linked. But apparently you called it dynamic and then made a list of completely seperate characteristics. Okay, sure.
If we're not taking the definition of dynamic as "going somewhere" then let's consult the dictionary, eh?
dy⋅nam⋅ic
/daɪˈnæmɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dahy-nam-ik] Show IPA
–adjective Also, dy⋅nam⋅i⋅cal.
1. pertaining to or characterized by energy or effective action; vigorously active or forceful; energetic: the dynamic president of the firm.
2. Physics.
a. of or pertaining to force or power.
b. of or pertaining to force related to motion.
3. pertaining to the science of dynamics.
4. of or pertaining to the range of volume of musical sound. Yes this generally would be it, definately not what you defined it as at all, eh?
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic...c&search=search
Now I'll assume that you aren't saying that a plodding piece of deep house is characterised by energy or vigorous activity, nor force or power. Unless you're an incredibly boring soul, that is. So I can only assume you are characterising this piece as dynamic in terms of the loudness and softness of different elements and sounds in the track and they interrelate, unless you're just inventing subjective meanings of "dynamic" and calling people clueless for not agreeing with you.
In which case, I'll counter your statement that a track can be exactly as I described and not be dynamic at all by saying that a track can be very dynamic by that definition and still be incredibly dull. So saying "How can it be boring? It's so dynamic!" just makes you sound like a music tech geek. There's more to good music than production. Perhaps your inordinate appreciation for this record stems from the fact you admit to sharing many of the ideas on display as a producer. |
I knew you would have to end up looking for the general definition of dynamic, because you really did'nt know what makes a track dynamic, since you thought 'Song for Isabelle' which is full of dynamics, is soooo not dynamic that the person describing it as dynamic needs a lesson on dynamics, which was quite a belly flop, with cute polka-dot bikini and all.
You know what you really defined? | quote: | | A track that sounds very different by the end or ends on a different mood to what it began on... that's a dynamic track. |
In music we call this progression, not dynamics. You could make a track that goes somewhere and it could have no dynamics at all, which makes your definition false. I wondered if we listened the same thing for a second, then I realised you really have no clue.
Now that you found out what dynamics generally means, and that dynamics is not what you thought it was, do you still believe 'Song of Isabelle' is not a dynamic piece of music? ::awaits goal post realignment:: How do you feel about not giving anyone a lesson, rather somewhat learning what dynamics actually is, isn't it great to learn new things through disagreement/dialogue?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQHz0QFuMyI(Song for Isabelle) |
|
|
| nefardec |
boring
'diynamic'
but surely not dynamic in any sense of the word i can understand
empty, flatline, tracky, forgettable
i did listen to the sample of 'the beauty' for about 2 more seconds to follow the trail of a fading chord |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| It's interesting that TA opinions/reviews vastly differ from the opinions elsewhere, like RA forum, about the same exact album. Definately entirely different cultures. Mostly positive about the album there, and mostly negative about the album here. Interesting phenomenon to me. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
Now that you found out what dynamics generally means, and that dynamics is not what you thought it was, do you still believe 'Song of Isabelle' is not a dynamic piece of music? ::awaits goal post realignment:: How do you feel about not giving anyone a lesson, rather somewhat learning what dynamics actually is, isn't it great to learn new things through disagreement/dialogue? |
I made the assumption that you linked dynamic to a track going somewhere. Show me any music theory that say "progression" means that. I don't think there is a technical term for a track "going somewhere". There are only adjectives, and I took "dynamic" as your adjective of choice. That was wrong. Fine, I hold my hands up to that. I took it we were describing a piece of art in evocative terms, rather than a piece of production in technical terms. I was wrong. Not many people, when defending a track from the accusation of boring, would say something like "It's so well EQ'd" or a similarly dry, technical attribute. I think Nefardec sums it up perfectly:
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
boring
'diynamic'
but surely not dynamic in any sense of the word i can understand
empty, flatline, tracky, forgettable |
You can have my misinterpretation of your appraisal of this track, but believe me it only makes it sound even more boring. I'll repeat what I said: it sounds like you're enjoying this track solely based on production merit, which just so happens to coincide with your own production ideas. Hmm...
By the way, they'll praise it over on RA because they're dullard trendsters who change allegiances every five years to suit what's popular. Since monotonous deep house has usurped monotonous minimal techno as the hipster strain du jour, it's not surprising they'll hype something like this. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
It's interesting that TA opinions/reviews vastly differ from the opinions elsewhere, like RA forum, about the same exact album. Definately entirely different cultures. Mostly positive about the album there, and mostly negative about the album here. Interesting phenomenon to me. |
LOLSTFU>FONOOB :tongue2 |
|
|
|
|
