Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
We've established that I misinterpreted your definition of the term. The definition I gave which you're mocking is quite clearly built out of what I took as your definition. My point was that this track doesn't go anywhere when you claimed it did, and if you think it does you need a lesson in what a track going somewhere sounds like. You're hanging desperately onto the fact I used the word "dynamic" instead of "progression", and it's not as though you've cited a single piece of evidence at any point in the thread to validate your definition of these words in a musical context, is it?
So yes, you score points for me quite obviously misinterpreting you:
But you haven't scored any points for demonstrating that this track fulfills any of the praise you've bestowed on it. So I'll mock you all I want for cumming all over incredible musical ideas like non-percussive intros and modulated leads. As my chum Sykonee said, these techniques are ancient history in dubby deep electronic music. Or just electronic music in general.
I'll say it here: this track is not very progressive and it's not particularly dynamic. Certainly it is unexceptional in either category to justify asking "How can you find it boring!?" I'll also venture it is not distinctive in its shamen-like poise, either. Just for point of reference of how dynamic this track actually is, here's the waveform compared to a classical piece (Beethoven), a typical techno track (Villalobos) and a classic progressive track (Sasha):
It doesn't use volume nearly as much as the classical piece, it doesn't look much different from a largely uniform techno track aside from a conspicious breakdown and it doesn't even demonstrate any more variation between loud and quiet than an old progressive track. So what have you got? A modulating lead and a beatless intro. Gripping.
bahahahaha! ^Too ing funny. The monsterosity of your fail keeps building like pile of junk in the game Katamari Damacy. Based on your latest post, you are COMPLETELY oblivious to what dynamics in music is, even after they have been well defined to you, well drawn out, with examples and all. You are even blaming me for your misinterpretation and inability to define what is meant by dynamics in electronic music. And what about the micro nuance level? I cant see those dynamics in those .wavs, so how the heck are you making a point with purely .wavs about dynamics?
What you are obviously saying now is, that only classical music can be dynamic, which in your mind somehow... my statement "Song For Isabelle by Stimming is dynamic piece of electronic music" is still a wrong statement. FFS you're doing it wrong, so wrong. And to add to that, you are using images of .WAVs as your only basis of comparing dynamics, and in that comparing 2 completely different genres of music. In order to set the next trap and your ongoing fails properly, I need you to claim two things that you are basically saying, and if you can't you basically disagreeing with your post.
1)Classical music is the only form of dynamic music, therefore electronic music that doesn't have the drastic drops in volume is not dynamic.
2)Comparing .Wavs is a sufficient way to decide whether a piece of music, without knowing the genre it is in, is a good way to decide whether it is a dynamic piece of music.
Here is another dynamic piece of music, a more simpler example for you to comprehend. And it disagree's with your .wav method of determining what is dynamic, because in your method we would not be able to see the dynamics found in this piece of music by Model 500.
Kismet7
By the way, ^that Model 500 (Juan Atkins) track is "REPETETIVE," but it is still quite dynamic. Even though it is repetetive, the advanced music listener still enjoys this piece of music, because they enjoy the nuances and dynamics incorporated in the piece of music. A novice music listener would see it as "meh, its repetetive." Based on the "its repetetive, its boring" replies to the Stimming album,that is where much of TA seems to be at, RA users seem to actually listen to the music they review. If you listened to the nuances and the dynamics he put in the music, you would appreciate the album, if you skim through it, you really cant enjoy it. Its not a brilliant album, but its definately not boring, especially if you actually listen to it at a resolution that it was meant to be listened to.
bas
I want capri sun :(
wotyzoid
quote:
Originally posted by Kismet7
SMC
"Dynamic" is not an absolute quality. Things are more or less dynamic. In music dynamics refer to the difference of levels over time. Strictly speaking virtually all music is dynamic, if it doesn't consist of an unbroken, uniform tone/sound that never changes in any perceivable way. However for something to be called simply "dynamic" the dynamics would have to be in some way exceptional or noteworthy. Midgets are 1 m tall, but no one goes around and says they're simply "tall".
Jasperovitsj
And you honestly believe that out of the ten of thousands of active members on TA, NO ONE is an 'advanced' listener, no one can distinguish nuances and details in music, let alone your illustrous dynamic? I understand you want to make a - be it rather poor - point, but you got to give us some credit, no? Come on man, you're sounding more and more like a self declared musical messiah that has come to enlighten this poor and ignorant forum. :gsmile: But hey, no ego there, right?
On, and just for the record, I did like Song For Isabelle quite a lot, even though it didn't strike me as particulary dynamic :o And I do think that making an artist album with such a 'resolution' that only a very tiny musical elite (or at least that's what they think of theirselves) can comprehend and appreciate it, is pretty ing retarded. I'm in no way a reference, but a good artist to me would be someone who can put all those layers and nuances in an album, but still avoids making it sound boring or too repetative for the majority of his target audience. Once again, I didn't find the whole of this album to be boring, and I think Stimming is a very solid producer. But let's say half of it didn't even make me feel lukewarm. But I guess my ears and brain are not equipped to handle that kind of resolution :o
Kismet7
quote:
Originally posted by SMC
"Dynamic" is not an absolute quality. Things are more or less dynamic. In music dynamics refer to the difference of levels over time. Strictly speaking virtually all music is dynamic, if it doesn't consist of an unbroken, uniform tone/sound that never changes in any perceivable way. However for something to be called simply "dynamic" the dynamics would have to be in some way exceptional or noteworthy. Midgets are 1 m tall, but no one goes around and says they're simply "tall".
I would agree to this. And this thread could use more people that understand this rather simple concept, that seems to consistently allude SYSTEM-J.
Kismet7
quote:
Originally posted by Jasperovitsj
And you honestly believe that out of the ten of thousands of active members on TA, NO ONE is an 'advanced' listener, no one can distinguish nuances and details in music, let alone your illustrous dynamic? I understand you want to make a - be it rather poor - point, but you got to give us some credit, no? Come on man, you're sounding more and more like a self declared musical messiah that has come to enlighten this poor and ignorant forum. :gsmile: But hey, no ego there, right?
On, and just for the record, I did like Song For Isabelle quite a lot, even though it didn't strike me as particulary dynamic :o And I do think that making an artist album with such a 'resolution' that only a very tiny musical elite (or at least that's what they think of theirselves) can comprehend and appreciate it, is pretty ing retarded. I'm in no way a reference, but a good artist to me would be someone who can put all those layers and nuances in an album, but still avoids making it sound boring or too repetative for the majority of his target audience. Once again, I didn't find the whole of this album to be boring, and I think Stimming is a very solid producer. But let's say half of it didn't even make me feel lukewarm. But I guess my ears and brain are not equipped to handle that kind of resolution :o
You like to make up , I never said 10,000 members don't know what dynamic music is, just the vocal minority who give reviews, specifically in this thread seem to not know, thats what TA meant in relation to RA. And since, obviously you dont know what dynamic music is (based on not finding a fairly dynamic piece of music as dynamic), you're not setting a great example for TA to rally behind. And what do you want Stimming to make Euro Dance music? He is obviously making underground music for people who actually listen to the music, if you find it boring or repetetive, thats because it likely wasnt made for you. You come off delusional when you consistently make up things you perceive that i've said, stop responding to this thread man. I don't know if its language barrier that has you translating what i've said into your own meanings, or delusions, but a few people are already handling the discussion, and I can only take on so many people throwing out off the wall assumptions.
Jasperovitsj
I wish I could actually listen to music, life would be so much better :(
Ah well, back to ye olde Eurodance :crazy:
Mr.Mystery
quote:
Originally posted by Kismet7
That said, why don't you tell us what dynamics is, im open to hearing the different meanings of the word in the context of the music discussion in this thread.
So far i've heard one meaning, and that turned out to be a progression. Now, i'll roll out the red carpet (quick sand?) for you as well, and ask you to kindly describe your definition of dynamic music for us. If you can't, you should'nt be questioning someone who has taken the time to define it, after having being told they don't know dynamic music is. Think about it for a minute. :tongue2
Elements of music interacting with each other.
And since I'm in the teacher-mode now: it's "you're".
Kismet7
quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Elements of music interacting with each other.
And since I'm in the teacher-mode now: it's "you're".
"Elements of music interacting with each other" isn't really the definition that you could stand behind, after telling someone else who has written a decent short summary (though I could elaborate furthur) of what dynamic music is, that he doesn't know what it means.
Ok we gotta start bringing this one to closure, it went from sharing opinions about the album, to a dialogue about those opinions, to cultures of different websites discussing the same music, to knowledge and credibility being questioned, to a lesson and hopefully a gaining of knowledge about dynamics in music, to more dialogue about discussion about dynamics in music, to all sorts of definitions of dynamics. I hope no feelings were hurt, I'm just here to communicate with people who seem to enjoy similar genres of music im into, without disagreement/dialogue, we would really get nowhere. My knowledge about dynamics got deeper after this thread, just by debating about it. So I gotta say, cheers and thanks to that! :D
Mr.Mystery
quote:
Originally posted by Kismet7
"Elements of music interacting with each other" isn't really the definition that you could stand behind, after telling someone else who has written a decent short summary (though I could elaborate furthur) of what dynamic music is, that he doesn't know what it means.
See, this is exactly why I didn't want to respond in the first place.
