the influence of "black culture"

Seraphim Belial said:
^ i second, especially since he nailed the "love" part so well, for what cannot be measured . . .

How did he "Nail" it, he did not show any sources that say "Love is not scientific" or anything of the sort. I have been presenting link's to back myself up and digging even more up that he continues deny like a any normal PC/liberal/christian would do. When scientists are more credible i'm more inclined to believe them.
 
Warlord Of Death said:
How did he "Nail" it, he did not show any sources that say "Love is not scientific" or anything of the sort. I have been presenting link's to back myself up and digging even more up that he continues deny like a any normal PC/liberal/christian would do. When scientists are more credible i'm more inclined to believe them.
that's the point. there are no sources because it cannot be explained. how do you explain that people love their parents if it's an orgasm chemical?

also, you need to stop immediately with labeling those who question science as christian or liberal. that's flat out incorrect.

first off, its conservative to question new science findings and dismiss them in favor of old interpretations. (Copernicus anyone?) science and political views are not related. science can be used to further the cause of many political platforms.

secondly, on the christian front. again, false. many christians in fact are turning to science (heard of the Church of Christ, Scientist?) to confirm and understand the events and meaning of what they believe transpired around 2000 years ago, and the integrity of the information contained in scrolls and books over time. science and christianity are not opposites.

and finally, if i am arguing that science can't prove that love exists or does not exist, and cannot firmly prove that one human being's "race" is superior to another, then why demand that i show science to claim otherwise?

clearly you're only seeing this from one side. ;)
 
Silent Song said:
that's the point. there are no sources because it cannot be explained. how do you explain that people love their parents if it's an orgasm chemical?

also, you need to stop immediately with labeling those who question science as christian or liberal. that's flat out incorrect.

first off, its conservative to question new science findings and dismiss them in favor of old interpretations. (Copernicus anyone?) science and political views are not related. science can be used to further the cause of many political platforms.

secondly, on the christian front. again, false. many christians in fact are turning to science (heard of the Church of Christ, Scientist?) to confirm and understand the events and meaning of what they believe transpired around 2000 years ago, and the integrity of the information contained in scrolls and books over time. science and christianity are not opposites.

and finally, if i am arguing that science can't prove that love exists or does not exist, and cannot firmly prove that one human being's "race" is superior to another, then why demand that i show science to claim otherwise?

clearly you're only seeing this from one side. ;)

I see your point, the only thing I won't believe is when science somehow finds the body or evidence of that archaic religion of filth, known a christianity. I'm just pointing out the major differences in race, and not much evidence is needed to point out superiority.....just listen to Bach, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev and Mendelssohn and you have your evidence.
 
ah, but clearly you must know that everything Bach, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, and Mendelssohn ever wrote is based on rhythm and progression yes?

Rhythm and progression are the core elements of Western music, and yet they do not come from the West. they originated in Africa by tribal groups who used drums to punctualize their ceremonies. They developed rhythm. none of those caucasian master composers could ever write a movement without rhythm, so they owe an immense deal to their African predecessors.
 
Silent Song said:
ah, but clearly you must know that everything Bach, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, and Mendelssohn ever wrote is based on rhythm and progression yes?

Rhythm and progression are the core elements of Western music, and yet they do not come from the West. they originated in Africa by tribal groups who used drums to punctualize their ceremonies. They developed rhythm. none of those caucasian master composers could ever write a movement without rhythm, so they owe an immense deal to their African predecessors.

So what you're saying is that classical music is based on african beats??? Uhhh, no. Those african's couldn't compose anything close to what those composers did, seeing as they worked in and out of scales, minor and major, polyrhythyms and different time sigs. Don't play the guilty white too much ;)
 
http://www.dovesong.com/positive_music/archives/about_western_classical.asp



Classical music is a term that is applied to a body of notated European music that extends back in time to the first millennium (We use the term Western to differentiate this music from the classical music from other parts of the world). From its inception, Western classical music was the music composed for the liturgy of the catholic religion to be sung in European churches and monasteries. The earliest of this music is called plainsong, or Gregorian chant. Gregorian chant consists of a single melody that is sung by a choir of nuns or monks without the accompaniment of musical instruments. Gregorian Chant dates from the 5th and 6th centuries.

During the 10th and 11th centuries, a new type of singing evolved that was based on Gregorian chant. This style was called organum. While Gregorian chant consisted of a single melodic line, two or more melodic lines were sung at once in organum. The emergence of organum was the humble beginning from which harmony (on which all Western classical music is based) sprung. Organum was the precursor of the beautiful A cappella choral music that was first composed in the 15th century by the gifted composers Jacob Obrecht (1457/8-1505), Johannes Ockeghem (c.1410-1497), and Guillaume Dufay (c.1400 – 1474) who are considered the greatest composers of the early renaissance period of European music.

The great 15th Century composer Josquin des Prez (c.1440-1521) (commonly called "Josquin") created a body of sacred works in a new style that would usher in the sacred music of the renaissance. This music will reach a climax of perfection and sublimity in the works of the three greatest composers of the renaissance period: Tomas Luis de Victoria (1548-1611), Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (c.1525-1594), and Orlandus Lassus (Orlando di Lasso) (1532-1594).

During the beginning of the 17th Century, a completely new style of music, called baroque music, found expression in Italy. This music was more secular in nature that of the renaissance period. It largely abandoned the sublime choral style of the renaissance in favor of a more florid solo style, and instruments were added as accompaniment. Music in the new baroque style was not only composed for the church, but also for secular entertainment as well. The first great composer of the baroque era was Giovanni Gabrieli (1557-1612). His music was still largely influenced by the renaissance style; however he employed instruments in his sacred compositions written for Saint Mark’s Cathedral in Venice. It was a successor at Saint Marks, Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643), who became the first great composer to completely break with the old traditions. The baroque era ended with the complete perfection of the baroque style by Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750).

Johann Bach’s three sons Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (1714-1788), Wilhelm Friedemann Bach (1710-1784), and Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach (1732-1795) helped usher in the classical era of Western classical music. Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) perfected the classical style.

The classical era was followed by the romantic era. Ludwig von Beethoven (1770-1827) was the great innovator who broke the hold that the music of the classical era had on Europe. Beethoven--like his predecessors Monteverdi and Josquin--created a revolution in music and completely changed the prevalent style. Beethoven’s music, beginning with his Third Symphony, was filled with emotion and feeling that had never before been so fully expressed. His music ushered in the flowering of the romantic era of Western classical music that brought forth a tremendous body of beautiful music exuberant with feeling and emotion from many European composers. The music of the romantic era culminated in the music of Richard Wagner (1813-1883) that brought the style to absolute perfection.

During the first years of the 20th Century, the next era of music began. This era is commonly known as the modern era of Western classical music; however, this title is really no longer applicable because the era is currently coming to a close as we head into the first years of the 21st Century. We prefer to refer to the so-called modern era as the Era of Negative Music because the prevalent focus of the era was upon discordant music, negative emotions, intellectually conceived structure, and an exploitation of ugliness. The first composers who are now considered the greatest composers of the negative era were Arnold Schönberg (1874-1951), Anton Webern (1883-1945) and Alban Berg (1885-1935). These composers introduced a new music to European audiences early in the century that no longer was based on the natural harmonic laws that all great cultures on the planet have based the harmonies and melodies of their music. Dissonant chords and intervals were said to be equal (and even preferable) to concordant ones, and melodies no longer needed to be based on a harmonic musical scale. The music of these composers ushered in the negative era and gave to the world new music that could express emotions that had never before been invoked by music: emotions such as fear, anguish, hatred and terror.
 
Warlord Of Death said:
So what you're saying is that classical music is based on african beats??? Uhhh, no. Those african's couldn't compose anything close to what those composers did, seeing as they worked in and out of scales, minor and major, polyrhythyms and different time sigs. Don't play the guilty white too much ;)

go find some sources on where rhythm came from. you can't build a skyscraper without a foundation.
 
Silent Song said:
that's the point. there are no sources because it cannot be explained. how do you explain that people love their parents if it's an orgasm chemical?

also, you need to stop immediately with labeling those who question science as christian or liberal. that's flat out incorrect.

first off, its conservative to question new science findings and dismiss them in favor of old interpretations. (Copernicus anyone?) science and political views are not related. science can be used to further the cause of many political platforms.

secondly, on the christian front. again, false. many christians in fact are turning to science (heard of the Church of Christ, Scientist?) to confirm and understand the events and meaning of what they believe transpired around 2000 years ago, and the integrity of the information contained in scrolls and books over time. science and christianity are not opposites.

and finally, if i am arguing that science can't prove that love exists or does not exist, and cannot firmly prove that one human being's "race" is superior to another, then why demand that i show science to claim otherwise?

clearly you're only seeing this from one side. ;)

This debate is going nowhere. It is impossible to determine which race is superior. They are different, but there is no way to quantify superiority. People are too caught up in their binary modes of thought and are unable to accept that you cannot divide all things into neat categories for the purpose of eliminating uncertainty. Nationalism is not about being objectively better, rather it seeks to preserve our(or whoever's) distinct culture.

Science cannot ever hope to prove that love does not exist any more than that anger does not. The best it could possibly manage is an explanation of it. If the chemicals that cause it are isolated and completely understood, love itself is no less real.

Christianity is rooted in faith, not experimentation. Ideally, science seeks to understand the natural world by probing it. The methods through which the two seek truth are completely different.
 
Demiurge said:
This debate is going nowhere. It is impossible to determine which race is superior. They are different, but there is no way to quantify superiority. People are too caught up in their binary modes of thought and are unable to accept that you cannot divide all things into neat categories for the purpose of eliminating uncertainty. Nationalism is not about being objectively better, rather it seeks to preserve our(or whoever's) distinct culture.

Science cannot ever hope to prove that love does not exist any more than that anger does not. The best it could possibly manage is an explanation of it. If the chemicals that cause it are isolated and completely understood, love itself is no less real.

Christianity is rooted in faith, not experimentation. Ideally, science seeks to understand the natural world by probing it. The methods through which the two seek truth are completely different.

this is exactly my point.

and on that last part, christianity is faith yes. but that doesn't mean christians should live everything on faith. some things need to be sorted out.
 
Demiurge said:
This debate is going nowhere. It is impossible to determine which race is superior. They are different, but there is no way to quantify superiority. People are too caught up in their binary modes of thought and are unable to accept that you cannot divide all things into neat categories for the purpose of eliminating uncertainty. Nationalism is not about being objectively better, rather it seeks to preserve our(or whoever's) distinct culture.

Science cannot ever hope to prove that love does not exist any more than that anger does not. The best it could possibly manage is an explanation of it. If the chemicals that cause it are isolated and completely understood, love itself is no less real.

Christianity is rooted in faith, not experimentation. Ideally, science seeks to understand the natural world by probing it. The methods through which the two seek truth are completely different.

Finally, something we can agree upon.
 
I'm Chinese, and I think it's unfair to judge which race is the best judging by their technology. Ancient Chinese were mentally imprisoned by Buddism and Taoism, which all promote obedience to the emperers and elders, and that kills our creativity really, but it doesn't mean we don't have the creativity when we're not bothered by those crap traditions. What's wrong with learning from "white" people anyway? Even the white people used to learn from the Asian people before they become influential enough to take over the world.
Asians have brain that big enough to learn, IMO
But as for the black race, I'm not too sure though, I think they become angry so easily, not sure though...
 
I don't know why the hell anyone thinks it's black culture to begin with, especially with some of the themes err most of the themes, which actually suggest that blacks want to fit the common racists profile, that makes no sense, since when is being black about raping, beating up women and cops, getting trashed on drugs, and all this other shit? No it's an entire urban construct that some how moved to the black youths of america and forced and lead them into this entire stagnating pile of shit ever since it's creation. There is little or no musical theory to it, it's construct is too recycled and conformed, it's far too simplistic and manufactured, there is no talent to it, it's something that cannot be considered music, period. I want to beat the holy shit out of every black person that comes up to me and says I'm being racist for denouncing rap and it's affiliates. As said before the only music culture that has been apart of black culture would have to be blues/gospel, these little "thugs" need a history lesson to their own herritage. It's really sad how uneducated and delusional these blacks are. And not only is it degrading to blacks it's spilled over into mainstream and pop culture (I've always hated mainstream conformity and all it's affiliates) but now you have even more of this degeneracy and anti intelligence herd crap on our population and being accepted without question and with terrifying zeal. It is forced on us everyday thanks to the good old marketing and commercial shit holes of america, so now the only thing that is acceptable is this crap, and everything else, especially metal and us metal heads are looked down upon. Now an entire generation of inane anti intelligence/simplistic and herd conforming kids are at our doorstep. I mean seriously look at our education levels, they are the lowest of the low, even our fucking colleges are no longer a place of scholarship but rather immoral, tactless, and mindless neaderthals, I garuntee you all of this is centered around these pop sensibilities and constructs. Same is tied in with pop music and glamour/holywood fufu and other contemporary bullshits, I'm tired of all this contemorary nonsense being shoved down our throats as marketing and manufactured profit getters and "jolly hip" trends. America is in a serious decline, and it's time to seriously put to death this rap and pop culture... :hotjump:
 
Screw it metal belongs the outside thats what made it great in the 80s.Rap ,hiphop suck so does the rest of the shit on the radio let them stay popular not every one in the world has a brain you can tell buy popular culture who's a idiot.

Also most nu metal sucks they think distorsion means metal but there just fags. What i mean buy nu metals is pretty much anything on the radio even the worst hair bands put more thought in there music.
 
troopsofdoom said:
not every one in the world has a brain you can tell buy popular culture who's a idiot.

you said it yourself. learn to spell before bashing a music genre. oh, and give those genres a chance too. you might learn something. just like we can all agree there are sucky metal bands, there are sucky rap groups. there are sucky nu-metal bands. but, because there are a few sucky metal bands, or even a lot, does that mean they all suck? i think you'd agree that's not the case. so again, before you judge, think.
 
Ya sure what ever ive been around long enough to see that hip hop crap mutate into a heaping pile of crap. When i was growing up getting insulted buy these rap loveing shit heads about my satan music rappers were killing each other for shoes. Sorry i dont spell as good as hip hoppers Yo Dawg.

BTW I have Black,white,mexican and asian freinds and rap still sucks i deal with it when i go to there places so this has nothing to do with race for me.
Lets face it the shit sucks.