The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Avicii's 'Wake Me Up' hits 200 million streams in Spotify. Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 7th March 2014
  #451
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HSA7 View Post
Katy Perry is a Hot 100 artist and songwriter. Some of Katy's favorite songs are by Queen, Alanis, Joan J, Garbage, Pat B, and a few contemporaries. Interview a majority of today's Hot 100 artists and songwriters, and you start to uncover a songwriting infrastructure "deeper" than just the current Hot 100. And, Bruno said he "really love's" the Peppers. Anyone else feel better?
Is the gist of your comments and questions in this regard that (a) you don't like most of the current Hot 100, but (b) you're aiming to have hits on the current Hot 100, so (c) you're looking for reassurance that (b) is possible in light of (a)?
Old 7th March 2014
  #452
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Lago View Post
Haha don't argue with someone who likes to argue!!
Yeah, it took me forever to learn that, but it's good advice.
Old 7th March 2014
  #453
Lives for gear
 

Carnalia Barcus ironically implies that he doesn't like to argue right after arguing with HSA7, cetera, and creegstor.

While his approach to discourse is seemingly cordial, if you don't jump through the argumentative hoops he places in front of you (like a dog in an agility contest), he resorts to calling you "nuts" and puts you on his almighty ignore list.

I believe he and Chris Lago share the same tendency to want to shield themselves from differing opinions simply because they cannot deal with them intellectually, cognitively, emotionally, spiritually, psychologically and socially.
Old 7th March 2014
  #454
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
Yeah, it took me forever to learn that, but it's good advice.
This is major hypocrisy, unless you are implying that you "learned" this during your brief stay at Gearslutz.
Old 7th March 2014
  #455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
Yeah, it took me forever to learn that, but it's good advice.
Ya, life's too short.
Old 7th March 2014
  #456
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
Where is "Bach is good" located?
In the music ya big silly!
Old 7th March 2014
  #457
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by creegstor View Post
In the music ya big silly!
Right, so where in the music? If someone says, "(That) Bach stinks", where do you point/what do you point at in the music to show them, "No, look--right here in the music are the properties that are or that amount to '(This) Bach is good'"?
Old 8th March 2014
  #458
Lives for gear
 
Herr Weiss's Avatar
 

Which Bach are you both referring to?
The one that was rediscovered by Mendelssohn or one of his famous sons.

An introduction to Johann Sebastian Bach - His Famous Sons

Please, don't answer me saying that "of course" is the father. His sons where more famous than the father. Mozart's favorite Bach was not the father but one of his sons. The father was actually considered "old fashioned", not part of the in crowd.

Now I am really confused!! heh


HW
Old 8th March 2014
  #459
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
Right, so where in the music? If someone says, "(That) Bach stinks", where do you point/what do you point at in the music to show them, "No, look--right here in the music are the properties that are or that amount to '(This) Bach is good'"?
I'd point to one of his fugues, and reveal his mastery of contrapuntal writing. In terms of common practice harmony, his skill simply cannot be refuted. Whether a person likes his music or not, his skill as a composer must be respected for what it is.
Old 8th March 2014
  #460
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fidelity castro View Post
his skill as a composer must be respected for what it is.
They way you've worded it seems quite objective, very reasonable and undeniable.

Only a subjectivist extremist would reject it or counter it.
Old 8th March 2014
  #461
Madonna is now apparently in the studio with Avicii..
Old 8th March 2014
  #462
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
Right, so where in the music? If someone says, "(That) Bach stinks", where do you point/what do you point at in the music to show them, "No, look--right here in the music are the properties that are or that amount to '(This) Bach is good'"?
Come now. If someone says "Bach stinks" would it matter what one points to?! I'm all about practicality in these matters, not going down rabbit-holes of existential nonsense.
Old 8th March 2014
  #463
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepc0re View Post
Madonna is now apparently in the studio with Avicii..
Ya he was her tour Dj after all.
Old 8th March 2014
  #464
Gear Head
 
HSA7's Avatar
 

BTW, Bach Stinks is a great band name.
Old 8th March 2014
  #465
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herr Weiss View Post
Which Bach are you both referring to?
Aren't you one of those Bernstein-Schooled, Philharmonic-Immersed masters ? Much in the same way "Classical" casually refers to "Orchestral", the unspecified use of "Bach" usually casually refers to Johann Sebastian Bach, the esteemed composer of "Air on a G string", "The Brandenburg concerti", "Prelude in C minor for solo lute (transposed to D minor for guitar), BWV 999" and "The Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565".

Or something like that. heh
Old 8th March 2014
  #466
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HSA7 View Post
BTW, Bach Stinks is a great band name.
Isn't the J. Geils Band's song "Love Stinks" extreme enough ? Apparently not !
Old 8th March 2014
  #467
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepc0re View Post
Madonna is now apparently in the studio with Avicii..
Is she teaching him how fidget better ? (I mean with, MIDI-based instrumental breaks ?)
Old 8th March 2014
  #468
Gear Head
 
HSA7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
Isn't the J. Geils Band's song "Love Stinks" extreme enough ? Apparently not !
Cardboard Bach? k, i'll stop
Old 8th March 2014
  #469
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by creegstor View Post
Come now. If someone says "Bach stinks" would it matter what one points to?! I'm all about practicality in these matters, not going down rabbit-holes of existential nonsense.
Not answering doesn't help your argument.

You're arguing that it's an external-to-minds fact, a set of properties contained in the music, that are, or that amount to "(This) Bach is good". Is that correct or not (that you're arguing that)?

If you're going to argue that, you need to provide some support of the notion that it is indeed some set of properties in the music itself.

Under your assumption, if someone says, "(This) Bach stinks", they are incorrect, because they are referring to an external-to-minds fact that they're getting wrong--they believe that the properties in the music itself are or amount to "This Bach stinks". But they're perceiving those properties incorrectly.

This would be just like someone saying, "That streetlight is 10 feet tall", when in fact it's 25 feet tall. In this case, we can point to the streetlight's extension, from the ground to its top in a vertical position on the street, and we could measure the extension and demonstrate to the person that they're perceiving it incorrectly. That's the nature of objective, external-to-minds facts.

So I'm asking you to "point to"--in other words to describe, just what external-to-minds properties we're talking about that are or that amount to "(This) Bach is good". After all, that's what's at dispute here--whether such properties exist in the first place, or whether what we're really talking about when we say "(This) Bach is good" is how we think about it, what we feel about it and so on.

Simply claiming that those properties exist in the music itself and then refusing to answer just what properties we're talking about, just what we'd measure, just what we'd point to in order to show that one person is "perceiving" the facts in question incorrectly isn't any sort of argument in support of your position.
Old 8th March 2014
  #470
Lol. This is actually a song in the norwegian finale of eurovision.

And in cause you don´t hear it, it has totally ripped of dynamite (verse) and american girl (chorus)

Old 8th March 2014
  #471
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
they believe that the properties in the music itself are or amount to "This Bach stinks". But they're perceiving those properties incorrectly.
You didn't put parentheses around "This", so I'm wondering if you meant "This Bach piece stinks" or "Bach (the person) stinks". Please clarify so I can address your other points.
Old 8th March 2014
  #472
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
So I'm asking you to "point to"--in other words to describe, just what external-to-minds properties we're talking about that are or that amount to "(This) Bach is good". After all, that's what's at dispute here--whether such properties exist in the first place, or whether what we're really talking about when we say "(This) Bach is good" is how we think about it, what we feel about it and so on.

Simply claiming that those properties exist in the music itself and then refusing to answer just what properties we're talking about, just what we'd measure, just what we'd point to in order to show that one person is "perceiving" the facts in question incorrectly isn't any sort of argument in support of your position.

First Ill point you to Oxford's definition of "good," particularly definition 2, which is the objective definition of the word - "Having the qualities required for a particular role." (good: definition of good in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US))

Ill then argue (specifically, if it were to come to that) that Bach indeed has the qualities required for the role of classical music composer, in his displays of melody, harmony, rhythm, and sonics.

Therefore, Bach is definitively and objectively good. Regardless of the fact that I personally prefer not listening to him.

I'll agree with you that this doesn't say all that much though, and that other definitions of "good" like "1. To be desired or approved of" cannot be objectively argued outside individual preference, except perhaps a scientific survey which shows that, as a made up example, 84% of music listeners agree that he's good, which would also be an objective fact.
Old 8th March 2014
  #473
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machiavellian View Post
You didn't put parentheses around "This", so I'm wondering if you meant "This Bach piece stinks" or "Bach (the person) stinks". Please clarify so I can address your other points.
The idea with the parentheses was that we could be talking about Bach's music in general or a particular Bach piece. Either one would work. If you want to try to support an objectivist argument about it, pick whichever one you think you can better support, and if you pick a particular piece, pick whatever piece you think you can provide the best argument for.
Old 8th March 2014
  #474
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
The idea with the parentheses was that we could be talking about Bach's music in general or a particular Bach piece. Either one would work. If you want to try to support an objectivist argument about it, pick whichever one you think you can better support, and if you pick a particular piece, pick whatever piece you think you can provide the best argument for.
I knew what you meant. I just wanted to argue your points one at a time. Maybe we'll eventually get around to discussing your later points, but for now I'd like to know how that error slipped through your (obviously meticulous) proofreading?
Old 8th March 2014
  #475
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machiavellian View Post
I knew what you meant. I just wanted to argue your points one at a time. Maybe we'll eventually get around to discussing your later points, but for now I'd like to know how that error slipped through your (obviously meticulous) proofreading?
What's up with new posters challenging the way in which people post rather than discussing the content of the posts?

Who cares if he didn't proofread? You admittedly know what he meant, and the discussion is about music, not messageboard posting styles.
Old 9th March 2014
  #476
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
What's up with new posters challenging the way in which people post rather than discussing the content of the posts?

Who cares if he didn't proofread? You admittedly know what he meant, and the discussion is about music, not messageboard posting styles.
So you are effectively telling him what linear argumentative sequence to employ, simply because his quantifiable numerical post count is low ? What if he had 10,000 posts ? Would he then get qualitative approval and a green light from you ?

You take your personal discourse "rulebook" way too seriously - it is a presumptuously stifling imposition. Not everyone has to post in YOUR manner or style.
Old 9th March 2014
  #477
Lives for gear
 
Carnalia Barcus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machiavellian View Post
I knew what you meant. I just wanted to argue your points one at a time. Maybe we'll eventually get around to discussing your later points, but for now I'd like to know how that error slipped through your (obviously meticulous) proofreading?
Usually my "proofreading" on message boards amounts to quickly reading through a post once after I hit "send" and then missing about half of the typos.
Old 9th March 2014
  #478
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by creegstor View Post
going down rabbit-holes of existential nonsense.
And/or, jumping through Barcus-Hoops of argumentative checkers.
Old 9th March 2014
  #479
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eldon2975 View Post
So you are effectively telling him what linear argumentative sequence to employ, simply because his quantifiable numerical post count is low ? What if he had 10,000 posts ? Would he then get qualitative approval and a green light from you ?

You take your personal discourse "rulebook" way too seriously - it is a presumptuously stifling imposition. Not everyone has to post in YOUR manner or style.
Yes another great example of a post that has absolutely nothing to do with music in any way shape or form.

Forum guidelines

4. Please stick to the topic at hand - off-topic posts will be deleted and you may be banned from threads and/or entire forums for repeat offenses. It is OK to be critical of a product but if you go on and on and on about it, especially if the topic isn’t related to your criticism then this will be considered “off-topic.”
Old 9th March 2014
  #480
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
Not answering doesn't help your argument.
I did answer. You just don't LIKE the answer I gave. I don't have an argument. It's axiomatic. Self-evident. Intrinsic. 1=1. No "argument" necessary.

If some people want to argue stupidly against self-evident truths I say let 'em.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
After all, that's what's at dispute here--whether such properties exist in the first place, or whether what we're really talking about when we say "(This) Bach is good" is how we think about it, what we feel about it and so on.
Again, no argument. And there is no mutual exclusivity between those two things. They both can (and do) co-exist quite peacefully.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnalia Barcus View Post
Simply claiming that those properties exist in the music itself and then refusing to answer just what properties we're talking about, just what we'd measure, just what we'd point to in order to show that one person is "perceiving" the facts in question incorrectly isn't any sort of argument in support of your position.
You're a smart, educated fellow. You know what the properties are as well as I do. Your blind belief purely in subjectivism over intrinsic quality is what won't allow you to admit it is all. It's also why I won't play your game.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump