theo parrish s/d

I've actually completely lost faith in Ronan as a critic because of this thread. It makes me sad.

YOU;RE NOT EVEN ARGUING ANYTHING!! You're simply posing hypotheticals and baiting us.

ronan: i'm speaking in the context of someone who actually enjoys consuming contemporary, 'underground' dance music. most people don't give a shit about tiesto, let alone theo fucking parrish. stop being ridiculous.

anyway, enough.

When you dudes are done fighting can you help me find my feelings on the internet? It seems I lost them somewhere around 2002.

just search for mike taylor, you were great before becoming the robert van winkle to pipecock's eminem.

x-post to table I came to ILM cos it was full of critics who would argue that anything was good, you never could say something was definitively shit without somebody smart contradicting you. why did you come here? and I am firmly arguing something....I'm showing the ludicrousness of your positions by the vast amount of potential differing opinions.

how can there be facts when there are hundreds of opinions about music?

resolved youre kind of a dick, arent you?

heres what you said:

some things are beyond subjectivity.

-- resolved, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:26 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

the extent you can take subjectivity seriously does have limits... plenty of people think the daily mail is a great, well written newspaper. it doesn't make them right.

-- resolved, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:30 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

so, if im reading you right, subjectivity 'has limits'--there are certain statements that are unquestionably factual, such as, for example, "the daily mail is a shitty, poorly-written newspaper." that isnt an 'opinion,' its a fact. it goes beyond subjectivity, making it 'objectively' true. right? im not saying anything that youre not implying in your own posts.

then you go and say this:

when did i say there was something scientifically 'good' about them? i'm not trying to force anything down anyone's throat here.

-- resolved, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:34 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

and im like, uh, what? if youre going to say that subjectivity has a certain set of limits (and hey, maybe it does!) at least be honest with yourself! if there are objectively true facts, why not try to articulate why theyre true?

how can there be facts when there are hundreds of opinions about music?

That is the problem with your argument, Ronan.

i'm speaking in the context of someone who actually enjoys consuming contemporary, 'underground' dance music

so you're saying people who loosely agree with you loosely agree with you.

x-post table the difference is we have science to prove other facts, but loosely I have no problem with that strikethrough.

if someone can prove to me why one artist is better than another, as in, with an equation or mathematics, with no value judgements, with something that is inarguable and incontrivertible.....then would LOVE to hear this.

Music is an art form in which the medium is sound organized in time. Common elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture.

THESE ARE FACTS

max, i suppose when i'm posting on an internet messageboard i'm not a case in a court of law. there are massive holes in my 'argument'. i don't really care. i was, after all, responding to someone in a patently pissy mood saying 'oh just fucking die' to the poster who has probably added the most of interest to the entire thread.

you guys understand youre all being geir in this argument right?

No table they're classical standards. You think the average classical musicians all leap to the defence of Theo Parrish or Ricardo Villalobos?

Many would say they are unmusical bullshit.

what is the equation of a good record, or of a bad one? people can't even express their own personal specific taste in mathematical or scientific or empirical terms, LET ALONE vast swathes of the taste of others or music itself.

good music i dance. no good music i not dance

the table is the table is one of the worst posters ever

tell us more about how you discovered the real spirit of dance music at oberlin

jesus, the craven ass licking on here

"people can't even express their own personal specific taste in mathematical or scientific or empirical terms, LET ALONE vast swathes of the taste of others or music itself."

if you disagree with the existence of something that can't be proved empirically than i just feel sorry for you.

lol im just joshing, but its more fun to just go into ad hominems

Has anybody heard the single sided ugly edit of Under Pressure? That shit is my jam!

how can there be facts when there are hundreds of opinions about music

-- the table is the table, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:00 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

liking ricardo villalobos is not a fact

rather, you liking him may be a fact, but that opinion is not in itself a fact

haha

"people can't even express their own personal specific taste in mathematical or scientific or empirical terms, LET ALONE vast swathes of the taste of others or music itself."

if you disagree with the existence of something that can't be proved empirically than i just feel sorry for you.

don't necessarily disagree with its existence....just can't put my finger on it. how could I, how could anyone? let alone as confidently as some purport to.

x-post my haha was@mike, credit where it's due, you cantankerous old bollocks.

Classical definitions, Ronan, that have brought music to its present state, whether the music be reacting against or in line with those definitions. To simply toss them off is ignorant.

That and there are tons of classical musicians who love shit like Villalobos. A composition teacher of mine thought he was great.

why are you a 'journalist' and not a physicist

deej, i wasn't arguing for or against villalobos there.

I never tossed them off, I simply said they are not empirical laws.

And of course there are lots of classical musicians who love him. Just as there are lots who hate him, have never heard him, listen to rap music, like sugar on their breakfast cereal, think society is in the gutter, don't believe in global warming.....

x-post I wish I was a physicist quite often, I'm just not good at it!

xxpost to ronan, pot calling kettle. it wants its handle back.

anyway, i apologise for framing my original point in such stern terms. i was reacting against someone else's being unreasonable. let's just leave it as this: i'm glad discernment exists. even if it's not exactly the same for everyone.

x-post i'm going to allow that!

any fucking moron who knows shit about notation and rhythm structure is going to hear that Hieroglyphic Being is more rhythmically complex.

But why does this make it better?

arguments about radicual subjectivity have no actual end, and no point.

well ronan, i'm not trying to have an argument here, and i'm certainly not angry. only you are. within my world (subjective!!), saying all djs are as good as theo parrish and villalobos is patently absurd. and there are obviously no limits to subjectivity, per se. but there ARE limits to the people whose opinions you choose to even register.

-- resolved, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:51 PM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

the cult of parrish and villalobos is unbearable

would rather bump dj pharris legends of house mix than either
suck it

i don't really care, deej. get back to freestyling over wearemonster

oh i agree, i wasnt suggesting that. i just wondered why rhythmically complex was important. with there being thousands of records more rhythmically complex than Our Day Will Come, yet only a hundred or so that could be described as better than Our Day Will Come

TP, i wasn't arguing about something more rhythmically complex being better than something that isn't. i was arguing that there are most definitely objective ways of defining certain aspects of music, especially when comparing one music (or track) to another.

that, and Ronan, pitch is actually a fact-- though perceived pitch is most certainly not a fact (environmental factors, etc).

sure and notes are a fact etc.....but what someone thinks of them is always an opinion

i dont understand your point. ronan is wrong to like certain artists because there are common perceptions between people regarding characteristics of some recordings

xp

i quit. but for real guys:

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g91/sophraves/874658934_l.gif

why do you think trees is saying ronan is wrong about anything? as i understand it he's saying there are objective ways of judging a piece of music which, in theory, enable you to make a value judgement on it. nothing is entirely objective, least of all the interpretation of scientific results!

i'd be happy if for the purposes of all ilm threads from now on we just assumed i didn't like any music whatsoever....maybe I'll just change my login.

resolved otm in fairness. not much to do with music taste anymore.

I dont think ktbwould be hard to tell ronan under a different login.

All facts are facts. However when facts are brought to a table, someone somewhere decided which facts to bring to the table.

And which to leave behind.

I hope their judgement in deciding which facts to bring was a good judgement!

why do you think trees is saying ronan is wrong about anything? as i understand it he's saying there are objective ways of judging a piece of music which, in theory, enable you to make a value judgement on it. nothing is entirely objective, least of all the interpretation of scientific results!

-- resolved, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:28 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

... arent you making his argument now?

I've actually completely lost faith in Ronan as a critic because of this thread. It makes me sad.

-- the table is the table, Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:54 PM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

why???

Or "it would be", posting from an iPhone in a moving car is the bomb.