How do good musicians find each other?

[Polyeidus]

Your points are well-founded. An open mind is less likely to miss the meaning of life. But It's your tone of voice which perturbs me.
People here obviosly enjoy prog metal, and have their opinions on music as a whole. But so what? Stay out of it, why don't you? Who made you the music police? "This is music, and they said so"
Whatever.

And another thing, I love the Shaggs. And I appreciate Kagel. What he did was music because he understood what music is.

I further support my branding your thesis as bullsh*t. In this light(the light I bring to your comment including Avril and Symphony X), it just so happens that the better musician in my opinioin HAS made the better music. Where music can be rated on ability, skill, etc. Yes, that is my opinion.
But, all music(what some would refer to as music) is NOT subjective!

Music is quite definable, is it not? If it can be defined, then why not classified good or bad?

One must first reach the construct of 'music' to form any subjective thought on it. It's either, good music, bad music, or it's not music at all.

And there lies the dilemma. Is it even music to start with? Most of the time, yes. But your references to the avant-garde are out of place. And for your benefit of sizing me up, I am not violently opposed to other tastes in music, not that you said I was. I probably have more eclectic tastes than you.

If you think all music is strictly subjective, you are quite mistaken.
And to put Symphony X and Avril into the mix of supporting your grandiose ego's new revelation to mankind... geez

 

[AttilaJ]

Originally posted by Pharoah
IHow do really good musicians find each other to start something great like Symphony X did (or any of the other awesome bands, for that matter)?

I think doing what you are doing which is use the Internet to communicate and look for ideas is one avenue to further explore. Maybe create a simple, free-hosted web site, where you can list interest and geographic restrictions - maybe some sound bytes.

Then, without spamming and while adhering to message board policies, scour the web for prog rock and other relevant web message boards and post your same questions.

Good luck.

 

[FLechdrop]

I think any sound made for the purpose of entertainment can be seen as music. As long as it's about the sound. Just spoken text, someone who tells a story for example, is no music of course.

 

[HateCrewDeathroll]

The only real way to have perfect chemistry is to begin with your bandmate. My guitarist and I started playing at the same time and now we have a band doing mostly Children Of Bodom covers and our dreams have come true. That's the only way that the bond can be real.

 

[Polyeidus]

Pharoah,

North Carolina has a website dedicated to you present dilemma. It's called NCmusic.com. The closest thing I found to it for your state is a site called PArocks.com. Try scoping it out, and be sure to check out the "Links" page. I bet there's a plethora of resources to help you out. Good luck.

 

[Harp Heaven]

People here obviosly enjoy prog metal, and have their opinions on music as a whole. But so what? Stay out of it, why don't you? Who made you the music police? "This is music, and they said so"

Hey, waddayaknow, I love prog metal as well! I have listened extensively to many of the well-known prog metal bands; Shadow Gallery, Threshold, Dream Theater, Symphony X, Spiral Architect, Zero Hour, Watchtower, et.c., et.c. I have also spent a considerable amount of time posting on these bands` respective forums, mostly on dreamtheater.net but also some here and on Thresholds forum.

Time and often, threads were popping up at dreamtheater.net with the prog elitists flexing their muscles. Titles like "todays music is just a bunch of kids making noises", "Are prog fans smarter than other music fans?" and "Why do not anyone understand our music?" pretty much says it all really. Throughout my period over at Dt.net, the impression I got from the fans of that band was that they imagined they were on an island way above the rest of the music listening crowd, unreachable by anyone but the most musically talented and intelligent. If they deigned to listen to simpler music, it was labeled "guilty pleasures". Granted, you can find the same attitude in many genres(especially Death/Black Metal, jazz and Classical), but out of the metal/rock genres, it seems most prominent in the progressive vein. More and more, progressive metal fans are starting to sound like the vast majority of classical music listeners, who sincerely think they have found the holy grail of music and vehemently refuse to listen to absolutely anything else.

Two years ago, I got heavily into classical music. I was out shopping for a christmas gift for my father, and while I was browsing around in the classical music store, I came across Boulez`s three piano sonatas. I listened to them, and was like "this shit is f*cked up!" and immediately bought it for myself, and Debussy for my father. After that, I went on a downloading/buying spree, building my classical music knowledge extremely fast, throughout all stylistic periods. I have fond memories of everything from that period, except for one thing: The ones who listened to the music. Classical music listeners are with a few exceptions arrogant jerks towards people like me, who have long hair and a little shabby style. The fans would have turned me away from the music if I had not had a sincere interest in it.

The last thing I want is that prog metal fans end up like that. Unless we can shake off the "better music taste than thou" image we have, then prog metal will never reach out to a broader audience. To finish off this part of the post, I will leave you with a quote from NewYorkNewYork from the John Petrucci board:

To all the haters out there:

You hate Nirvana and practically everything else that's popular because you're jealous. You have zero musical success and you can't get over that fact. (Disclaimer: I have zero musical success but got over that when I was about 18)

You hate DJ's, rappers, and everything else involved in electronically created music because you are afraid to dance. You are the type that stands alone in the corner at a party wondering why everyone else doesn't listen to Dream Theater or Symphony X or Spock's Beard. You can't accept that for 99% of the population, music is about having a good time. Once again, get over yourself.

I think he has a point.

Once again, bolded for the optically challenged:

How can you, without claiming omniscience or some kind of divine understanding of art, decide what objectively good or bad music is?

You love the Shaggs. I think they are bad music. In fact, they fulfill all your criterias for bad music. In my ears their music is poorly performed, poorly written and poorly arranged. I cannot for the life of me understand why people hail them as geniuses and give them top marks. Still, I don`t say that these people are stupid, do I? They have differing opinions from me, just as you and I have. When you cease to respect that is when you start your ride through the path of the arrogant. And when it comes to good/bad music, everyones opinion is equal, from the tone-deaf kid who listens to Fifty Cents and JaRule to the master composer with perfect pitch who loves Mozart and Bach.

I further support my branding your thesis as bullsh*t.

It was not a thesis, merely a comment that the original poster found helpful. If you think being open-minded and respectful to other tastes of music is bullsh*t, then I feel sorry for you. Nothing more, nothing less.

In this light(the light I bring to your comment including Avril and Symphony X), it just so happens that the better musician in my opinioin HAS made the better music. Where music can be rated on ability, skill, etc. Yes, that is my opinion..

So that means George Bellas is better than the Beatles, right? Bellas is a much better musician than all the members of the Beatles, both technique-wise and theory-wise.

So that means Majestic is better than Yes, right? Majestic are much better musicians than Yes, both technique-wise and theory-wise.

Ability, skill are not what matters when it comes to music for me. What matters is what comes out of the speaker. Period.

But, all music(what some would refer to as music) is NOT subjective!

How can you claim such a thing?!?!?!? If someone likes music that you have branded as objectively bad, is he then wrong or stupid? How is your taste better than his? Once again, bolded and in big font for the optically challenged:

How can you, without claiming omniscience or some kind of divine understanding of art, decide what objectively good or bad music is?

Music is quite definable, is it not? If it can be defined, then why not classified good or bad?

Music has defied definition for years. I have access to grovemusic.com, and the article on the definition of music pretty much says it all. I will cut/paste it in the next post, so you can read for yourself.

One must first reach the construct of 'music' to form any subjective thought on it.

No, one only needs to listen and decide if one likes what one hears. No more thinking is needed. See, art is like a wooden table. In the case of a wooden table, a skilled and experienced carpenter could determine the quality of the joints and the strength of the wood used et.c. But is the table ugly or is it not? That is up to the viewer to decide. I think Franka Potente is the most beautiful actress in the world. Others think she is ugly. Who is right? I can conjure infinite amounts of these examples, and you have yet to answer my question, which has been repeated twice above.

And there lies the dilemma. Is it even music to start with? Most of the time, yes.

I don`t see the dilemma. But then, it`s 10:44 in the morning and I have been writing this post for over an hour. I`m off. This post has gotten far too long for me to carry on writing it.

Peace,
Harp

 

[Harp Heaven]

Music, §III: The concept in scholarship

1. Definitions of the word and concept.

Verbal definitions written by and explicitly for musicologists are greatly varied, and discussions leave the question open, as indicated for example by a number of late 20th-century works devoted to fundamental issues in music scholarship such as the question of music's identity – the dialogue in Was ist Musik? by Carl Dahlhaus and Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht (1985), What is Music? edited by Philip Alperson (1987), Contemplating Music by Joseph Kerman (1985) and Rethinking Music edited by Nicholas Cook and Mark Everist (1999). Such works hardly provide definitive definitions and the question is rarely broached in papers at major conferences.

A study of the definitions of music in music dictionaries provides a clear contrast to those of language dictionaries, which generally agree and are obviously based on the values of Western art music. Some music dictionaries avoid the term entirely, on the assumption that no definition is needed, or perhaps because none would be totally satisfactory. Others provide detailed attempts to state the quintessence of music, or the character of music in its ideal form. When pressed to commit themselves, musicologists provide a bewildering set of definitions and, even more, of views that suggest what in music is essential and important. The following excerpts illustrate:

A major Italian reference work, Enciclopedia della musica (ed. Claudio Sartori and Riccardo Allorto, Milan, 1963–4), simply says, ‘l'arte dei suoni’ (‘the art of sounds’), which is followed by a short explanation.

The most widely used English-language reference book in the USA, Willi Apel's Harvard Dictionary of Music (Cambridge, MA, 2/1969), has an entry under ‘music’ devoted entirely to a discussion of the etymology of the term, and of classification of music in ancient and early medieval eras, but without a definition to which the author himself subscribes.

The most widely used German reference work, Riemann Musik Lexikon. (12th edn, Sachteil, Mainz 1967) provides in the first part of the article ‘Musik’ a very carefully circumscribed definition and characterization by Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht:

Musik ist – im Geltungsbereich dieses Wortes: im Abendland – die Künstlerische Gestaltung des Klingenden, das als Natur- und Emotionslaut die Welt und die Seele im Reich des Hörens in begriffsloser Konkretheit bedeutet, und das als Kunst in solchem Bedeuten vergeistigt ‘zur Sprache’ gelangt kraft einer durch Wissenschaft (Theorie) reflektierten und geordneten, daher auch in sich selbst sinnvollen und sinnstiftenden Materialität. Denn das Element der M[usik], der Ton, ist einerseits (vormusikalisch) Sinnträger als hörbares In-Erscheinung-Treten der Innerlichkeit eines Erzeugers, andererseits (innermusikalisch) Sinnträger als Nutzniesser einer Gesetzgebung (Tonordnung), die den Ton dem spezifisch musikalischen Gestalten, Bedeuten und Verstehen verfügbar macht und die dabei zugleich, in dem sie die Naturgegebenheit des Klingenden Rechnung trägt, Naturgesetzlichkeit ins Spiel bringt.

‘Music is – in the area in which the concept is relevant, Western culture – the artistic formation of those sounds that represent the world and the spirit in the form of a voice of nature and emotion in the realm of hearing, concretely conceived, and which achieves significance as an art, becoming both meaningful and meaning-creating material through reflected and ordered cognition and theory. For the basic element of music, the tone, is on the one hand the bearer (pre-musically) of meaning as reification of the essence of creation, while on the other hand it is (intra- musically) the vehicle of meaning as the beneficiary of the canon (tonal order). These lend to the unit of music, tone, its specifically cultural forms, meanings and conceptions and at the same time, as a natural phenomenon, it remains accountable to the laws of nature.’

Ingmar Bengtsson, in Sohlmans musiklexikon (Stockholm, 1948–52), begins a medium-length general article, ‘Musik’, with emphasis on the relationship of the concept of music with dance and movement and with speech in many cultures, and continues:

How the concept of music is delineated and defined at different times and in different parts of the world depends mostly upon which criteria one applies, that is upon the norms the conditions for which must be met before something is considered music in contrast to ‘non-music’, or ‘no-longer music’, or ‘good’ or ‘correct [acceptable]’ music in contrast to ‘bad’. These criteria and norms have varied enormously, while at the same time they have seldom been consistently or even distinctly formulated.

In the Russian music encyclopedia Muzïkal'naya entsiklopediya (Moscow, 1973–82), the editor himself, Yuri Keldïsh, provides an article under ‘Music’:

A form of art that reflects reality and has an effect on the listener through the intellectual response and sound combinations. … By expressing mental images and emotions in aural form, music can be identified as a form of human communication and as an influence on the psychological state of mind. This influence is possible because of the physical and biological harmony of the musical sensitivity of human beings (as many other living beings) and human psychology, especially emotions, and of sound as a stimulus and signal for activity. In some ways, there is an analogy between music and human speech, especially speech intonation, where the intrapersonal feelings and emotional attitudes towards the outer world are expressed by alterations of pitch and by other characteristic expressive vocal sounds. This analogy makes it possible to identify the nature of music according to intonation.

Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (1st edn, ix, Kassel, 1961) provides a major article on ‘Musik’ whose first part deals with its psychological and acoustic properties. The second part, concerned with definitions, by Heinrich Hüschen, begins:

Die Musik ist diejenige unter den Kunstdisziplinen, deren Material aus Tönen besteht. Von dem in der Natur vorkommenden Tonmaterial, gelangt in der Musik nur ein verhältnismässig geringer Teil zur Verwendung. Die aus der unendlichen Zahl von Naturtönen ausgewählte endliche Zahl von musikalischen Tönen wird durch bestimmte Rationalisierungsprozesse zu bestimmten Tonsystemen zusammengeschlossen.

‘Music, among the artistic disciplines, is the one whose material consists of tones. Of the raw material available in nature, only a small proportion is actually used in music. The finite number of tones selected for musical use from the infinity available in nature is organized into specific tone systems through defined rational processes.’

A further section, devoted to the question of definition, points out the many historical attempts to define music but concludes quickly:

Gleichwohl gibt es bis zur Gegenwart keine vollkommene und letztgültige Definition der Musik und also keine Patentlösung für die Frage, was die Musik in ihrem Wesens- und Seinsgrund nach sei. Vielmehr lassen alle Begriffsbestimmungen, wie sie im Musikschrifttum vorkommen, immer nur eine ganz bestimmte Seite des Gesamtphänomens in den Vordergrund treten.

‘For all that, there is to the present time no complete and definitive definition of music, and thus no absolute solution to the question of what music is, in its essence. Rather, the various definitions of the concept that appear in literature always emphasize a particular aspect of the total phenomenon.’

While largely agreeing that music is an art combining sounds, these definitions suggest a variety of opinions. Sartori regards arts that consist of sound as intrinsically music, avoiding, for example, the dilemma posed by arts involving speech. Bengtsson and Hüschen imply that a variety of non-congruent definitions from different periods and cultures may all be equally valid, while Eggebrecht maintains that music, in the sense that he wishes to present it, is a Western phenomenon; or, perhaps more correctly, that the definition he presents refers only to music in Western culture and, indeed, to art music – which, the argument reversed, means that for his purposes the only true or proper music is Western art music. Implying a basis in nature, Eggebrecht's unicultural approach contrasts with that of A.J. Ellis and his successors who became ethnomusicologists, and for whom music in its cultural variation was explicitly not a natural phenomenon. Keldïsh implies an intercultural view informed by psychology and biology. Throughout, the definitions are narrower than the cultural usage of music would require, indicating perhaps that the musicologist's shape of the music concept includes a centre of which each definer is certain, a quintessence, along with fluid and arguable boundaries.

 

[Polyeidus]

You have proved that your not just full of hot air, and that you have, from experience witnessed the terrible evils of snobbery that cloud the better music of our time.

Is that music? Kagel thinks so. Many of his fans do. In fact, a lot of them think it is good music. I don`t think it is, does that make me right?

Yes. It makes you right.

And this is one of the ugly fruits of Relativism.

There can be NO judgement. NO objective standard. Neither for beauty OR truth in relativism.

And I just don't buy it.

 

[Harp Heaven]

You have proved that your not just full of hot air, and that you have, from experience witnessed the terrible evils of snobbery that cloud the better music of our time.

Thank you for not being flaming and harsh in your responses. I certainly see where you are coming from, and I must say that I agree with your opinion that relative quality is diffuse and makes music escape judgement. But that is how it has to be. One mans` trash is still another mans` treasure, and it always will be.

 

[Pharaoh]

Thanks, Polyeidus..for the link, and everyone for the advice / comments.

RE: The Shaggs...Gee, I missed this one, must have been obscured in my 70's fog somewhere

 

[Grom Hellscream]

Originally posted by Polyeidus

And to explain, I'll first give you a defiition of bad music.

Bad music is poorly written, poorly performed, and poorly arranged.

That's not all.
Bad music is unnatural music too, such kind of music that the only reason of why it was created is to earn a lot of money.

I value amateur , poorly performed music more than good professional pop shit, f.e. big ass superstar J.Lopez and so on.

 

[Grom Hellscream]

For Harp Heaven:

Are you a nigilist?
Or what?
You were offended by calling you post bullshit?
And for that you've written so much words?

OK, I think that your idea was bullshit, what can you say to me?
And I won't refrain, because you are very saucy.

Never try to prove that you are clever than anyone , posting tons of words, if someone cannot answer you with the same , he just has no time for this.

 

[Harp Heaven]

Are you a nigilist?

The word would be nihilist. As http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nihilist]dictionary.com[/url] proves, you should brush up on your foreign words. While I am somewhat leaning in that direction, the correct term to use would be "relativist". I believe that the quality of things like art is entirely up to the listener, since we as men are all equal and there has yet to come a higher being into existence dictating what good music is.

You were offended by calling you post bullshit?

No, I asked why he thought so. I am fine with other disagreeing with my opinions, as long as it is done with a little more elaboration than a 8 character long swearing word. He proceeded to explain his disagreement and we had a thought-provoking and interesting discussion about the subject, where we came to a sort of agreement at the end. Then you came in with your words of wisdom, and started it all over again.

And for that you've written so much words?

I wrote so many words because I have a lot to say in the discussion about the relativism of art. I am not usually any good at writing long posts.

OK, I think that your idea was bullshit, what can you say to me?

Okay:
How can you, without claiming omniscience or some kind of divine understanding of art, dictate what good or bad music is?

If someone likes the music you have dictated as bad, does he/she then have a poor taste in music?

If someone else comes in and says that he/she has found out what good or bad music is, and the list of groups that are bad music includes your groups, would you not then be greatly offended and protest?

Why is your music taste better than a 17-year old guy who loves JaRule, Fifty Cents and Outkast?

Answer those 4 questions for me, and I`ll be pleased.

Never try to prove that you are clever than anyone

Why are you attacking me? I`m just trying to have a discussion about this subject here. Am I being punished because I have a lot to say and the effort to substantiate what I say?

 

[Pharaoh]

Guys, it all goes back to my original thread where I mentioned (in my opinion), that I think the commercial music market is bulls***, and I referred to prog as "good". I didn't feel a need to explain in detail my "opinion". I enjoy this Forum and would never want to offend anyone, I respect and value others' opinions. Harp Heaven has some interesting comments. I suppose I am a "Prog Elitist". I think many fans in the Forum are too!

I can only go on what I have experienced firsthand for many years about the business of music. Far too many talented and sincere musicians have become victims of manipulation by the system (the ones who control the money). It often becomes a fine line between self-preservation and self-sacrifice. The buying music listeners are in turn manipulated and quite often deceived by prefabricated products that are manufactured and churned out by the "machine", passed off as "good music". If it has a video, if it's nominated for a Grammy, if all the other kids in class like it, etc. etc. it MUST be good and certainly MUST be substantial. It is an illusion to me. It has been this way for a long time and will continue.
This is where my bull**** word fit in, because this is how I feel.

I am thankful to have found an alternative in this genre of music, because it seems to me that (for the most part) the creators of this music are honest, sincere, extremely talented, and choose a path to distribute it by means that do not alter their creative freedom, or build walls between themselves and those who respect them for it (and pay money to obtain it). That's my "good music" comment. There is a lot of good mainstream music, and there certainly is something for everyone's taste. Music is wonderful. I just can't appreciate the manipulation for mass profit and gain. Sure, contracts are signed and paths are pre-determined. But...true talent is often overshadowed and many are victimized in this business. Many are comfortable with it, too.

I only wanted to mention here my personal reasons for the comments. Actually, all I wanted to know was how good musicians find each other in a certain area! Yikes!

Harp Heaven, I saw Zappa perform in a gym where there were only 16 other people there! It was very interesting, as he dismissed the band after a 2 hour show and spent time writing some new songs. So, we watched him sit on his amp while he wrote 3 songs for his "Apostrophe" album. "Whaddaya think of this???", he would say. Thumbs up, thumbs down, etc....

 

[Grom Hellscream]

Originally posted by Harp Heaven
The word would be nihilist. As http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nihilist]dictionary.com[/url] proves, you should brush up on your foreign words. While I am somewhat leaning in that direction, the correct term to use would be "relativist". I believe that the quality of things like art is entirely up to the listener, since we as men are all equal and there has yet to come a higher being into existence dictating what good music is.

No, I asked why he thought so. I am fine with other disagreeing with my opinions, as long as it is done with a little more elaboration than a 8 character long swearing word. He proceeded to explain his disagreement and we had a thought-provoking and interesting discussion about the subject, where we came to a sort of agreement at the end. Then you came in with your words of wisdom, and started it all over again.

I wrote so many words because I have a lot to say in the discussion about the relativism of art. I am not usually any good at writing long posts.

Okay:
How can you, without claiming omniscience or some kind of divine understanding of art, dictate what good or bad music is?

If someone likes the music you have dictated as bad, does he/she then have a poor taste in music?

If someone else comes in and says that he/she has found out what good or bad music is, and the list of groups that are bad music includes your groups, would you not then be greatly offended and protest?

Why is your music taste better than a 17-year old guy who loves JaRule, Fifty Cents and Outkast?

Answer those 4 questions for me, and I`ll be pleased.


Why are you attacking me? I`m just trying to have a discussion about this subject here. Am I being punished because I have a lot to say and the effort to substantiate what I say?

about nigilist/nihilist - our alphabet is Cyrillic, so sorry, I did not know... in our language this word is spelled [nigilist]

words of wisdom - I did not claim the shit I've written to be "words of wisdom" . Please use facts, irony is mistakenly.

probably , you came to a sort of agreement because he simply didn't want to read all your staff..

I wrote so many words because I have a lot to say in the discussion about the relativism of art. I am not usually any good at writing long posts.

don't be shy, you ARE good!!

answering the questions:

1. There is a kind of simple philosophy that there is no objective world at all. Everything that EXISTS , it exist in your own mind it is your own reflection of reality. That is why two different people may see(hear, feel) the same things in different ways. Music too.
That is why there is no good or bad music.
But there is commercial music. (The main idea of it is to earn money, they are like thieves. They steal your money propaganding you a kind of music easy to listen, understand , like and forget. This is bad music in my openion. ) and there is music that may be treated like some kind of art, music made for itself, made like a picture, not for the reason to like the most people , but for the reason to find a like-minded person and so on...
I can say very much concerning that question, but ...
Probably, INTUITION helps me to distinguish good music from bad music. Because , probably I feel, when the author puts his/her own soul into his/her composition and when he/she does NOT. To be short.

2. No, if he likes the music I do not like. Becase the music I don't like is not obligatory BAD music. It may be "good music that I don't like".
But if a person likes only a "bad" music (*see 1.*), yes he/she has a bad taste in music or has not a taste at all. (as a reason may be that he don't like music much. Simply)

3. No, I would not protest, but I'll be intersted to hear motivations why.

4. Sorry, can't answer this question, I do not know why, because I don't think that my music taste is better than his. I only think that it is better for me. .

Are you satisfied? Now satisfy me, please.

When you say "This girl is beautiful", how can you, without claiming omniscience or some kind of divine understanding of beauty , dictate whether is she beautiful or simply good-looking?? Or "this rose is red" , or " the sun is shining brightly". Everything you claim?

Isn't this question silly??

When you say such things, you imply that you see this girl as a beautiful or this rose as a red one.

That is why I see your words about playing in a band... you know what I mean... as a bullshit or heres, if you wish . And it should not offend you, it only offends that idea..

And that is why I think I have the right to solve the dichotomy of classifying music into good and bad in a way,supposed to be the proper one by me.

Answer, please, just one question : is there written above something absurd, inept or preposterous?

and the last...
about attacking/punishing
I am not an executioner to punish you
Why am I attacking you? I don't know. May be I find your way of posting message unjustified riiculous? Or may be from the depths of my subconsciousness you advanced to be disliked by me?

Don't know exactly. Most probably I just don't like such flames that you had. I think it is unnecessary to argue without reason, just for having debates. And I don't like your style.

You are posting too much quotes ( i mean quotes from some sources , especially in German and other "hostile" languages) and lots of links. What for? To make your arguments stronger? I can take it on trust, if there is a grain of Truth.

P.S. If you find some mistakes in my words or grammar or something else, please no more dictionary links, I swear I'll reform myself some day.

 

[Harp Heaven]

I did not claim the shit I've written to be "words of wisdom" . Please use facts, irony is mistakenly.

Oh come on, are you that much of a prude?

But there is commercial music. (The main idea of it is to earn money, they are like thieves. They steal your money propaganding you a kind of music easy to listen, understand , like and forget. This is bad music in my openion. ) and there is music that may be treated like some kind of art, music made for itself, made like a picture, not for the reason to like the most people , but for the reason to find a like-minded person and so on...

I must add that the question you answered was incomplete, it was supposed to be "how can you...objectively good or bad music. I agree with that the music business is rotten to the core and many records put out today have no heart or soul. But that does not make the music objectively bad, just dishonest. That`s two different things: One has a definable constant, the other does not.

Becase the music I don't like is not obligatory BAD music.

In other words, you are agreeing with me in that art is subjective! You must excuse me, I think I might have misunderstood your original post. If it was referred to the comments about him finding people to play with, then I will be more than happy to discuss that.

When you say "This girl is beautiful", how can you, without claiming omniscience or some kind of divine understanding of beauty , dictate whether is she beautiful or simply good-looking?? Or "this rose is red" , or " the sun is shining brightly". Everything you claim?

When I say that Franka Potente is beautiful, what I`m actually saying is "after my observation of the actress Franka Potente in her various roles in movies and staged pictures, I can concede that my own sense of sight is pleased with what it is experiencing." There is no caveat saying that you should think so in there, or that you are not allowed to think otherwise. Thus, I`m placing myself equal to you and every other human on earth. Now, if I had instead said "people who think Franka Potente is ugly have no understanding of beauty", then I place myself and my personal taste above those people, even though I am equal to them. Thus, I cannot say this without claiming that I somehow have gained a greater understanding of beauty than all humans on earth.

That is why I see your words about playing in a band... you know what I mean... as a bullshit or heres

I`m a bit confused here; What exactly are you thinking about?

Answer, please, just one question : is there written above something absurd, inept or preposterous?

Not that I can see. It`s a bit hard to read the meaning in your posts, because frankly, your english could need some work. Most of the stuff you have written is just your opinion, which are entitled to in any case. I`m trying as best as I can to answer it. What is written BELOW, however, is another matter.

Most probably I just don't like such flames that you had.

Which ones are you referring to? I might be a little harsh and "br00tal" in my criticism of music(especially that which is advertised by hit and run posters), but I like to think that I keep the flaming to a minimum, rather resorting to loooooooooonnnnggg posts to "win" discussions.

I think it is unnecessary to argue without reason, just for having debates.

Now, this is where you lose me completely. What the heck are you talking about? I`m not into this just for the sake of arguing. There is a genuine argument behind what I am saying, founded on logic and reason. By agreeing with me you have proved that you as well think it is.

You are posting too much quotes ( i mean quotes from some sources , especially in German and other "hostile" languages) and lots of links. What for? To make your arguments stronger? I can take it on trust, if there is a grain of Truth.

So far, there have been a total of 2 quotes from external sources and 1 link in 7 posts(okay, one of those posts was a long quote, but still). I don`t consider that much, really. The quote from the petrucci board was posted because I think it is a thought-provoking statement that really hits many prog-metal fans square in the face with their own snobbery. He said what I was trying to say with a brevity that I admire. The article on the definition of music was of interest due to Polyeidus` statement that "music can be defined". I c/p`ed that article to show that it hasn`t. If you have the patience, try reading it. Just so you know it, the meaning of truth is subjective, so to back up my truth I will have to substantiate what I say to make a good case

Another long-ass post from
Harp Heaven
*fanfare plays*

 

[Polyeidus]

Originally posted by Grom Hellscream


probably , you came to a sort of agreement because he simply didn't want to read all your stuff..

I didn't mean to imply agreement. It's just that I don't buy into relativism and there's nothing more for me to argue. And here again it ultimately comes down to opinion.

Although, it is my opinion that relativism is bullsh*t, and to say there is no absolute is perfectly preposterous.

 

[Grom Hellscream]

Originally posted by Polyeidus
I didn't mean to imply agreement. It's just that I don't buy into relativism and there's nothing more for me to argue. And here again it ultimately comes down to opinion.

Although, it is my opinion that relativism is bullsh*t, and to say there is no absolute is perfectly preposterous.

1. I haven't said that there is no absolute, I said that you can say nothing about its existance. It may exist, and it may not. You will never know about it.
2. If it exists , tell me about it, please

 

[Grom Hellscream]

Originally posted by Harp Heaven
Oh come on, are you that much of a prude?

No, I just don't like such words, because they contain hidden taunts. And I do not like being taunted.

I`m a bit confused here; What exactly are you thinking about?

I'm sorry. heresy. It is an error . It was too late

I ment that being "open-minded" is not always good.

It`s a bit hard to read the meaning in your posts, because frankly, your english could need some work. Most of the stuff you have written is just your opinion, which are entitled to in any case. I`m trying as best as I can to answer it.

Me wok had, me trai lot . Inglish is good. Me lern Inglish.

Now, this is where you lose me completely. What the heck are you talking about? I`m not into this just for the sake of arguing. There is a genuine argument behind what I am saying, founded on logic and reason. By agreeing with me you have proved that you as well think it is.

I never said there were not logic or reason in your words, I said that your argument were unreasonable. If I argued with every
who had called my words "bullshit", I'd made my fingers callous.

Just so you know it, the meaning of truth is subjective, so to back up my truth I will have to substantiate what I say to make a good case

My poor English does not allow me to understand what you've written here

OK. Some thoughts.
It was too late and I failed in writing clearly. I'll try to do it now.

I do not think that you write nonsense and bullshit about music. It is hard to argue with you because what you say is a pantomoral dogma - "respect other's tastes". Like "brush your teeth". Yes, we must. But I have a right to regard some person as a moron and some kind of music as a shit.

But I admit my guilt of posting shit and calling your words bullshit.
I excel as a mentaly unbalanced man, so ... don't resent.

 

[Harp Heaven]

It is hard to argue with you because what you say is a pantomoral dogma

Pantomoral is not a word, but it was a kind of cool expression, I`ll remember that. You must remember that respecting others opinion does not mean that you are not allowed to say that you thinktheir music is shit. It`s about acknowledging that they don`t.