Drum 'n Bass.

[richardlowellt]

To be perfectly clear, I am very reluctant to discuss anything with someone who does not understand a simple thing called acceptance.

You accept things that are of value to you. You wouldn't accept poor workmanship in a car, or anything else. Do you like all you see on TV, are there movies you find completely worthless, if so I could say the same about you, that you didn't understand a simple thing called acceptance.

I love music and appreciate a huge variety of music, would that be rock or rock'n'roll, or classical music, or heavy metal, or grunge or any other style of music you care to name. I like it all, including D&B, and I appreciate human emotions of Nina Simone just as much as a clinical baseline in Dieselboy D&B track, just as much as Adagio in G minor and then quite happily can listen to Rummstein

Then if you appreciate all of these styles you should be able to understand what I was referring to about certain music being shallow and lacking in substance. You should see that if you compare Adagio in G minor and any D$B music. It goes beyond style and has everything to do with content.

. The simple fact that you can not recognise the beauty in all of music only shows your own limitations.

Well you right here I have no tolerance for music that lacks substance and is devoid of any human emotion. I view music as an art form, so most likely approach it a little different than you I suspect.

Good luck in your career... :rainbow1:

Thank you, same to you.

 

[katiafish]

There is a big difference in accepting something and agreeing with it. I do not agree with your opinion, however I accept that that is the opinion that you have. Therefore I am not going to say that your opinion is meaningless or worthless, or any of those things, it makes sense to you and that I accept.

And that acceptance is something that seems to be lacking in your opinion, you refer to one type of music I enjoy as being shallow and dismiss the whole of this particular music direction as lacking in substance, but you forget to mention that it is your personal experience and opinion of it.

I accept that it is your opinion, but I do not agree with it, obviously, I still like a specific quality that this music possesses and you hardly are going to persuade me otherwise..

And if it superiority in music understanding that you seek, I grant you your wish, you are by far the most superior novice in this monastery...

 

[richardlowellt]

There is a big difference in accepting something and agreeing with it. I do not agree with your opinion, however I accept that that is the opinion that you have. Therefore I am not going to say that your opinion is meaningless or worthless, or any of those things, it makes sense to you and that I accept.

And that acceptance is something that seems to be lacking in your opinion, you refer to one type of music I enjoy as being shallow and dismiss the whole of this particular music direction as lacking in substance, but you forget to mention that it is your personal experience and opinion of it.

I won't belabor the point here, but it is NOT my opinion that this music lacks substance and is shallow, its a fact. Music either has or it doesn't have well structured melodies, harmonic variety, and human emotions. It's really that simple, the music you like has, in fact, non of those qualities. You enjoy this music, you find value in it, my original question why someone would be drawn to this music, I got my answer, so I'm cool with that.

I accept that it is your opinion, but I do not agree with it, obviously, I still like a specific quality that this music possesses and you hardly are going to persuade me otherwise.

My idea was NEVER to dissuade you from what you enjoy, and my opinion plays no part in this, as I said my observations are factual.

And if it superiority in music understanding that you seek,

It is absolutely what I seek, and what I teach my students, how else can you advance the art form unless you have complete understanding of how music works on many different levels.

 

[richardlowellt]

There is a big difference in accepting something and agreeing with it. I do not agree with your opinion, however I accept that that is the opinion that you have. Therefore I am not going to say that your opinion is meaningless or worthless, or any of those things, it makes sense to you and that I accept.

The advice I give to my students is to never say you simply don't like something, never offer this as just your opinion, be able to describe in depth just why you don't like the music. Describe technically what is lacking and what elements could be used to fix what you dislike.

 

[Aquitaine]

Hey hey!

I gots me some hardcore Drum n' Bassage right here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MYzkBiJn5Y














Sorry, I just had to do it!

 

[katiafish]

This is starting to become pointless.

I repeat once again, even though you are claiming otherwise, you are talking about your experience of this music and your analysis of it, it is the the way that you experience it, and any experience is subjective. And something what is subjective is not factual, therefore you can not claim something is a fact, when it is you who is experiencing it.

I am surprised you can teach anyone to understand how music works on many different levels, if you are unable to do so yourself..

 

[katiafish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLETn9Xfz-A

 

[Aquitaine]

This is starting to become pointless.

I repeat once again, even though you are claiming otherwise, you are talking about your experience of this music and your analysis of it, it is the the way that you experience it, and any experience is subjective. And something what is subjective is not factual, therefore you can not claim something is a fact, when it is you who is experiencing it.

I am surprised you can teach anyone to understand how music works on many different levels, if you are unable to do so yourself..

Sorry for just jumping in here, but she's right: Music is Art, and Art is entirely subjective.

 

[katiafish]

And Richard, you claim all D&B is made byt the machine, what about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvP5Tp-CLtQ

 

[Aquitaine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLETn9Xfz-A

Woah.......... that.......was...........different.

LOL! xD

The only Drum n' Bass song I can list off the top of my head is that Girl Boy Song by Aphex Twin:

YouTube - Aphex Twin - Girl / Boy Song

 

[katiafish]

Nice, well done for joining in..

Expand your consciousness any means possible, that is what I say

 

[richardlowellt]

This is starting to become pointless.

Yes it is pointless, you just don't get it.

I repeat once again, even though you are claiming otherwise, you are talking about your experience of this music and your analysis of it,

It is not the way I experience it, it is a black and white analysis of content, it is a fact, even though you don't get it, that the music lacks substance, It's apparent that you have no understanding of the basic elements of music, so any further conversation is pointless.



.

And something what is subjective is not factual, therefore you can not claim something is a fact,

Were do you get your logic from? Either a fact is a fact or it's not, it has nothing to do with being subjective. Tree's have leaves, fact, our planet orbits the sun, fact, your music is without substance, fact.



I am surprised you can teach anyone to understand how music works on many different levels, if you are unable to do so yourself..

You don't become a full professor by NOT knowing what you are talking about, apparently I am not able to show you how music works, its a good thing our not one of my students, you would fail miserably in my Analysis course.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Richard:

1) Not all music possesses a melody. That is not a part of the definition of music. Organized sounds with the intent to evoke emotions is all it takes. A drum solo is music, and humans have been dancing to drums longer than any string instrument has been around by a long shot.

2) Organization is a subjective feature. There is nothing objective about how much order something requires in order to count as "organized."

3) Music does NOT possess emotions. We attribute emotionality to songs. Common experience of humans allow composers to generate songs which appeal to a great many people in a similar way, but similar does not equate with the same way. No person will experience the same emotion as a result of exposure to a particular song (nor will all have the intended emotion as a result of the musical experience). This means that the "emotional component" of a song is also purely subjective.

3A) All human experiences necessitate subjective relations. It is not possible to generate the same experience to a given stimuli. Anyone as versed in science and analysis as you claim to be should know this.

4) Calling someone's favorite music trash or lacking emotional components is childish at best. Take a look at the title of the forum superior to music: its "Art." I suppose anyone whose taste in art differs from yours must be the kind of person who would fail in analysis classes?

4A) Not everyone cares for the Mona Lisa, but there can be no denying it is art nor that it is an excellent piece of art. Just because someone favors a different emotional experience from you or one that you fail to be able to experience does not make the particular piece of art that generates it not count as art nor does it make it a lousy piece of art. If you want to only favor music which does not appeal to the more primal aspects of humanity, then so be it, but an appeal to the more sexual or ecstatic human emotional experiences hardly discounts a particular piece of music from being good or being able to be appreciated.

MTF

 

[richardlowellt]

Richard:

1) Not all music possesses a melody. That is not a part of the definition of music. Organized sounds with the intent to evoke emotions is all it takes. A drum solo is music, and humans have been dancing to drums longer than any string instrument has been around by a long shot.

Well yes it is---Music---The art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion. The key word here is organized, and yes primitive people often expressed themselves with various percussion instruments and also used it for dance, your point?

2) Organization is a subjective feature. There is nothing objective about how much order something requires in order to count as "organized."

Well yes it does, humans have to be aware of this organization so there has to be a certain amount of organizing otherwise it just sounds like jibberish.

 

[YmirGF]

YouTube - Prodigal Son - Stalk Her (Drum and Bass)

I think this is a great example of how technological ability can exceed artistic creativity.

 

[richardlowellt]

3) Music does NOT possess emotions.

It most certainly does, composers infuse their music with certain emotions, thats part of being a composer, it becomes only mathematics when one composes without emotion.

We attribute emotionality to songs

Not always, a film composers job is to compose into the music, certain emotional responses from those watching the scene. Anyone watching the end of ET certainly does not feel a comedic reaction to the music, nor one of horror, the music is designed to have you feel sadness, a sense of loss, and wonder, all emotion written into the music, a good film composer can make you have a certain emotional response.

Common experience of humans allow composers to generate songs which appeal to a great many people in a similar way, but similar does not equate with the same way.

See above

No person will experience the same emotion as a result of exposure to a particular song (nor will all have the intended emotion as a result of the musical experience). This means that the "emotional component" of a song is also purely subjective.

Wrong, a film composer can and does make all have the same emotional response. Any composer film or not, can do the same, it's just not as obvious without the visual image.

 

[YmirGF]

Bogdan Raczinsky

It's "music" like this that makes me wish I had had the nerve to become a performer years ago. It certainly adds new dimension to the word garbage.

 

[richardlowellt]

3A) All human experiences necessitate subjective relations. It is not possible to generate the same experience to a given stimuli. Anyone as versed in science and analysis as you claim to be should know this.

See above, film composers.

4) Calling someone's favorite music trash or lacking emotional components is childish at best.

Now don't go putting words i my mouth, I never called his music "trash" That because it was mostly generated by machines a said it lacked emotion.

Take a look at the title of the forum superior to music: its "Art." I suppose anyone whose taste in art differs from yours must be the kind of person who would fail in analysis classes?

LOL, you seem to have completely lost your way here, taste has NOTHING to do with analysis, analysis is simply being able to identify the musical elements contained in a piece of music.

4A) Not everyone cares for the Mona Lisa, but there can be no denying it is art nor that it is an excellent piece of art. Just because someone favors a different emotional experience from you or one that you fail to be able to experience does not make the particular piece of art that generates it not count as art nor does it make it a lousy piece of art.

Someone educated it art, will be able to identify the skill and passion that went into painting the Mona Lisa, they may not like it, but they KNOW why they don't like it and can tell you in very exacting technical terms why they don't like it

If you want to only favor music which does not appeal to the more primal aspects of humanity, then so be it, but an appeal to the more sexual or ecstatic human emotional experiences hardly discounts a particular piece of music from being good or being able to be appreciated

If someone wants to listen to primitive music, music that promotes a primitive response, thats fine, knock yourself out, I tend to want to broaden my listening experiences and listen to something a little more sophisticated.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

See above, film composers.

Now don't go putting words i my mouth, I never called his music "trash" That because it was mostly generated by machines a said it lacked emotion.



LOL, you seem to have completely lost your way here, taste has NOTHING to do with analysis, analysis is simply being able to identify the musical elements contained in a piece of music.

Someone educated it art, will be able to identify the skill and passion that went into painting the Mona Lisa, they may not like it, but they KNOW why they don't like it and can tell you in very exacting technical terms why they don't like it



If someone wants to listen to primitive music, music that promotes a primitive response, thats fine, knock yourself out, I tend to want to broaden my listening experiences and listen to something a little more sophisticated.

Organization is a function of order (where order is equal to the amount of patterning within a given system). Organization is purely subjective. Different people will see different amounts of order as being either ordered or chaotic. It is entirely a matter of personal preference.

Film composers TRY to elicit a singular emotion in all people viewing, and a good film composer will very often succeed, but they will not be able to succeed with every human being on earth. Period (try showing ET to someone born and raised in rural Bangladesh and they won't know how to respond even if you translated the words; of course your point is contradicted if the music alone can't do the job). And the quality of the emotional response elicited will not be the same (won't be the same amount emotion nor the same feelings associated). This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the emotional component of any art is PURELY subjective.

It is entirely about taste. You admit it yourself at the very end. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the music and everything to do with primitive music eliciting primitive responses that you find "unsophisticated" and you reveal your prejudice against it as such.

MTF

 

[richardlowellt]

Organization is a function of order (where order is equal to the amount of patterning within a given system). Organization is purely subjective. Different people will see different amounts of order as being either ordered or chaotic. It is entirely a matter of personal preference

We're not talking about "seeing" order but hearing it. An idiot can sing and understand row row row your boat, the pattern is obvious, no one will hear it as chaotic. Organization in music can be obvious as it is in simple children's song or veiled as in a improvised jazz piece or complex classical music. Once again n o one is going to perceive itsy bitsy spider as chaotic.

Film composers TRY to elicit a singular emotion in all people viewing, and a good film composer will very often succeed, but they will not be able to succeed with every human being on earth.

Human emotions exist in all humans, given that they understand the premiss of the movie all will have the same response.

Period (try showing ET to someone born and raised in rural Bangladesh and they won't know how to respond even if you translated the words; of course your point is contradicted if the music alone can't do the job).

Oh I disagree, being raised in Bangladesh has nothing to do with understanding basic human emotions, if they understand the premiss of the movie then the music alone will elicit an emotional response.

And the quality of the emotional response elicited will not be the same (won't be the same amount emotion nor the same feelings associated).

It is possible I suppose that everyones emotional response will not have the same intensity, they will all feel sadness, for example, but not the same intensity.

This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the emotional component of any art is PURELY subjective.

It may be in other art forms but in music, specifically film music, if the premiss is understood then all will have the same response in lesser or greater intensity, so you have proved nothing beyond a doubt.

It is entirely about taste. You admit it yourself at the very end. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the music and everything to do with primitive music eliciting primitive responses that you find "unsophisticated" and you reveal your prejudice against it as such.

I'm trying to be polite here, if people find enjoyment listening to music that has little or no quality, more power to them. Your right I am prejudice to unsophisticated music, as in my food, wine, literature and art, I tend to seek a certain level of sophistication, creative output, craftsmanship, and wide range of emotion in my music.