Orbital

[theVOID]

1) I already know you like the music, you don't need to explain it

Then why do you feel you need to make a critical analysis of the music when I already know you dislike it because you've told me so? My response was that music that I like sounds good to me because it just does and I like how it makes me feel, my point wasn't to state the obvious but to contrast it with your view of feeling the need to post a 'critical analysis'.

2) My analysis was not for anyone, you included, it's just what i like to do with music that i don't appreciate, and if anything, it makes it more profound when you understand all the parts and how they come together.

If it wasn't for anyone then why did you feel the need to post it and defend your position when I responded to it (as is my right on these forums I think?) by saying that this is a 'discussion' forum so you're allowed to respond? Of course you're allowed to discuss the matter but then why do you claim that the said 'analysis' wasn't intended for anyone? Did you want me to not respond to it? Well if that's the case you shouldn't have posted it because you can't stop me replying, there's nothing in the forum rules that says that if someone posts a 'critical analysis' of a musical piece then no one is allowed to respond to them because they aren't putting it up for discussion , it's for 'them alone'.

1) Because you came to the conclusion that i was trying to convince you to dislike the music, i was not. You already know why i posted the analysis, because i had already written it into notepad while i was listening to the song and thought i might as well post it because it was relevant to the subject.

2) I never said i didn't want anyone to respond to it, if that was the case i wouldn't have posted it. What i did say is that it was not intended to convince someone not to like the music. If you are going to respond to that kind of analysis don't bother doing so through an emotional argument, it's like you're comparing apples and thunderbolts. Did you disagree with my analysis of the music? Was there an element i missed or did not correctly identify? Was there a problem with my recognition of the wave type? If not then any complaints about it just show that you missed the point.

I appreciate that you like to do it for your self, but then I don't understand why you need to post it on a discussion forum without expecting me to respond.

1) In case anyone was interested in seeing it, i had already written it so there was zero effort involved in copy/pasting.

2) I hoped someone would respond... with analysis, not with an erroneous rebuttal to a point i was not trying to make. Again, and for the last time, i am not trying to convince you not to like the music and any response from you along those lines is misguided. If, however, you are interested in talking about the objective parts of the music (i.e the facts) then i am happy to do so.

It was not intended to convince anyone of anything, i've already said this twice but you keep bringing it up.

So why did you post it if it was for yourself? And if it wasn't for yourself, what was your intention? And what was your expectation? Did you not expect me to respond in contrast? You even told me that this is a 'discussion' forum remember, but of course it is, and that's what we're doing, discussing. Have I ignored any of your posts here? I think not...

Because i had already written it down AND because i thought someone might be interested in it <- I have already written this, yet i have to type it again because you have either missed the point or ignored it. I have already answered all of your questions and then some.

And critical analysis is quantifying the parts of the music[...]

I understand the analysis but I don't understand how you draw a conclusion 'from it'. I did respond to your analysis, but not with an analysis of my own because I don't think it's possible for me to express in words how the music makes me feel and how good it sounds to me, so I think it would be a pointless exercise. I appreciate that you yourself enjoy doing it and it makes a lot of sense to you, but I simply wanted to respond with how to me it just sounds totally awesome and that music is subjective so I don't see what your point in posting the 'analysis' was 1. Just for yourself alone. 2. If you expected me to reply with my own analysis. Instead I just responded with how the music is obviously subjective and it makes me feel good and that's that.

Analysis = Objective quantifying of the music
Conclusion = Subjective summary against my own personal preferences.

Do i need to make it any more clear?

If you are interested in discussing the music it's self and not our individual subjective perceptions then we can do so, but if you're not interested in talking musical analytics then why would you even bother responding to an analysis?

Ok now that is something that is not subjective in any way. They are musicians, they make and perform music. It doesn't matter what they want to call themselves, they do not get to change the English language just to suit themselves.

They mean it in the sense that they aren't instrumentalists (they don't really play instruments much).

Neither did Bach, would you not consider him a musician?

FFS evie, I have already explained this, why i like to analyse music i'm not familiar with, it seems to me you aren't even reading my posts, you're just on a girlish little rant. Enjoy yourself.

I am reading your posts and I have pretty much just the one point to make:

I replied to your critical analysis because I assumed you weren't simply talking to yourself... and I replied to it by saying that to me all that matters is that the music sounds good to me.... I personally don't understand how the critical analysis has got anything to with the matter of how good music sounds to the listener personally, and how it makes them feel. I don't think music is intellectual I think it's emotional. I simply responded with something to that effect, so I don't see where this is going really.

You replied to a technical analysis, not a subjective opinion nor an assertion that you should have the same opinion as me, if i had made the latter statement then you would be justified in your emotional argument, but i did not, I made a series of observations about a piece of music and then offered a conclusion after the fact and taking into consideration my own views. Are you actually able to find one area of fault with my analysis? If you can then let me know and we can discuss it, but don't bother harping on about how the music makes you feel, that has no place in such a discussion.

I mostly dislike Orbital and gave reasoning for why based on an analysis, that being the progression and combinations of elements in their music does not appeal to me as a whole. I really don't care if you want to know why i dislike it or not, but i like to give reasons for why i came to my conclusion, so i did.

So were those reasons to yourself alone or were they actually posted on the forums so persons such as myself can respond to it?

If you disagree with the analysis then post a response in terms of analysis!

If you disagree with my conclusion based on both my analysis and my own preconceived ideas of what i enjoy about music then post specifically about that.

There is no point doing what you have been doing thus far, that being arguing emotionally against the analysis. I already know your conclusion about the music and i never once argued that your conclusion was wrong, it can't be considering the entirely personal nature of emotions, but what we can have a valid discussion about is the structure of the song it's self. If you're not interested in talking analysis then, again, what the hell are you arguing against?

For the last time, i was not trying to convince anyone of anything, i analysed the music for my own benefit, so i could understand something about it beyond just listening to it once and making up my mind. I decided to write it down on the off chance anyone was interested in knowing a bit about the structure of the song or why i disliked it.

I was interested and I responded.

You responded to the analysis as if it was opinion. That was where this all went down hill.

Now, if you don't mind, i am rather sick of repeating myself all because you came to an erroneous conclusion about my intentions.

What conclusion? I fail to see what the problem is.

You thought that my analysis was intended to refute your emotional response to the music, that much is obvious from your arguments, but it wasn't, i was just interested in discussing the music it's self - the elements, sounds, textures, progressions, structures etc.

Do you get it now?