Orbital

[Edwardo Piet]

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'.

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.

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...

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.

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).

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.

[quote]
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?

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.

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.

EvF

[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?

[Rhizomorph13]

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

Someone who composes music without playing it would be called a, hmm, what's the word...

Ah, yes, a composer. *churlish smirk*

Rhizo

[theVOID]

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

Someone who composes music without playing it would be called a, hmm, what's the word...

Ah, yes, a composer. *churlish smirk*

Rhizo

Suck it, biatch!

v v v v v v v v v v v v

mu·si·cian (my-zshn)
n.
One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.

[Rhizomorph13]

Ahh you found a dictionary that agrees with you, how cute.

[theVOID]

Ahh you found a dictionary that agrees with you, how cute.

No, i found that the English language agrees with me.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/MUSICIAN
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=musician
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/musician

[Rhizomorph13]

Nice for you, you won one, but at what cost?

Think of the children!

[theVOID]

Cost = 0

[Violet]

Cost = 0

0 = nothing.

Therefore the cost was nothing! You bastard! You just destroyed EVERYTHING!

[Edwardo Piet]

Because you came to the conclusion that i was trying to convince you to dislike the music, i was not.

When? I don't believe I came to any such conclusion.

What i did say is that it was not intended to convince someone not to like the music.

Did I say that it was?

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.

I'll respond how I wish to respond (so long as it's within the forum rules) thank you. I responded by pointing out why we differ and why I personally don't value analyses. I made no argument and I made no complaint. I was pointing out why we differ and emphasising how a 'critical analysis' means nothing to me personally because all I'm interested in is the subjective aspect (how the music sounds to me, and how it makes me feel). So my whole point was to point out where we (at least seem to) differ there.

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 wasn't arguing against your 'point'. I was merely pointing out the reasons why to me personally I consider it pointless - how I differ in that I'm just interested in how the music sounds to me, not any such 'analysis'. And take here the emphasis on to me personally. I was not making any argument, I was not so much 'disagreeing' as in "your wrong" as I was simply differing. As in "You seem to feel X way and think X and be coming from X angle, whereas I on the other hand seem to feel Y way, to think Y and to be coming from Y angle. X may mean a lot to you but not to me - here may be an example of where we simply differ."

I hoped someone would respond... with analysis, not with an erroneous rebuttal to a point i was not trying to make.

Well I'm afraid I wasn't making a rebuttal and I was pointing out where we seem to differ is all.

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.

Well let me ask you this then and make this matter very clear hopefully: Did I ever actually say that you were trying to convince me?

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.

I have already expressed the reasons why it doesn't interest me, and where we seem to differ. That was the only point of my post.... : And also to point out my own puzzle over those who don't see it my way - not at all that there way is wrong.... of course not, it's subjective: Just that I can't seem to see it their way (or your way) so it puzzles me, and so I am interested in seeing where we differ and perhaps talking about that. I wasn't interested in making a rebuttal and I'm sorry if I didn't respond in the way you'd expect me to but I didn't want to post with a rebuttal. I choose what I post.

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.

I was interested in what you posting, but I wasn't interested in rebutting it. I was only interested in responding with where we seem to differ. Once again: I'm sorry if I didn't respond the way you might have expected me (or someone else) to. But I wasn't making any argument or rebuttal that was not what I wanted to post.... I was however interested in your post as a whole and that's why I still responded to it.... I just drew interest from it different to what you would expect it seems. I was interested in expressing where we differ.

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

Do i need to make it any more clear?

No you don't... my response to your analysis did not conflict with it in anyway I was merely expressing why to me analysis isn't important. To ME. As I said, I was interested - and still am - in why, how and where we differ.

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?

Because I was interested in where we differ (and still am) - so I simply found something in your post that you didn't expect me to. I'm not remotely interested in 'rebutting' that was the whole point of my response actually (or at least a key one). I was stating where it seems we differ.

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

That wasn't my point. My point was that since they aren't really instrument players there is there obviously no instrument playing to judge so it's simply about the matter of how it sounds rather than how the sound is produced (or how difficult it is or not to produce with an instrument).

I thought that there was both a definition for 'musician' that means someone who creates and/or plays music and a definition that means 'instrumentalist', someone who plays instruments. I was talking about the latter definition. If there is no such definition then it simply appears I am mistaken about the definition but of course my point wasn't about the definition.

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

Did I ever say you did?

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?

I'm only interested in the sound and feel of the music for me - all my response to your analysis was about is where we seem to differ. And why I personally reject your analysis on my own personal level: Not because it's 'wrong' at all. But because I personally am not interested in it. I wished to reply with where we differ and that is what I did.

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'll respond to your posts with whatever I want thank you (so long as I don't break forum rules) - I wasn't interested in 'rebutting' your analysis. And my response was in fact partly about explaining why (which I felt is part of why we differ). On the whole it was just about where I think we seem to differ in general.

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

So I can only respond with what you expect me to?

No actually I wasn't interested in that. See above on this post. I was interested in where we differ is all.

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.

I wasn't interested in that. And I wasn't interested in 'rebutting'. I was interested in where we differ.

There is no point doing what you have been doing thus far that being arguing emotionally against the analysis.

I'm simply responding to you though. I'm not emotionally arguing at all - in fact I see that as pretty damn oxymoronic. The whole point of my responses to your posts is that I feel that music is a matter of personal taste and the buck stops there with me, I'm not interested in a 'critical analysis' and so I wanted to respond with how I think we differ is all. Did I make an argument? Was I claiming any objectivity whatsoever?

I already know your conclusion about the music and i never once argued that your conclusion was wrong,

Did I ever say you did?

it can't be considering the entirely personal nature of emotions

What can't? Personal taste can. Is personal taste in music not personal?

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?

Nothing. I am not making any argument at all. I am trying to understand where we differ and perhaps even how any why (if that's possible to find out that is). I don't understand what the purpose of having a discussion about a structure would be when all our judgements about that structure is entirely subjective because our judgements are subjective, and when the entire conclusion is based on how the music sounds to me so any analysis completely makes no difference.

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

I responded to the analysis that it indeed is a matter of opinion about what music sounds good to the listener personally (that's clearly a personal matter) - and I wanted to emphasize where we seem to differ on the matter... in that - I, at least, don't quite see what the point of discussing about an analysis if it makes no difference to me whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. I was explaining why. I only care about the sound and feel as a whole, the buck stops there for me whatever the analysis is.

And besides, how can analysis from another person mean anything to me and vice versa? In which case, what discussion is there even to be had? As far as I'm concerned, from my perspective, all the discussion in the world doesn't change how a piece of music sounds one bit. It speaks for itself. So what would the purpose be of discussing it?

You thought that my analysis was intended to refute your emotional response to the music,

So you're a mind reader now? I didn't come to any conclusion at all.

that much is obvious from your arguments,

I don't see how that can be the case considering the fact that, as far as I'm concerned - I never made any arguments.. I hope I have made that clear with this post. I was interested in where we differ (as in, subjectively), I wasn't interesting in disagreeing (objectively) with an 'argument'.

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?

I already get that you want to discuss the music itself and I hope I've made it clear in this post that my response was that I'm not interested in that because I consider it a pointless matter. I wanted to express how I feel we differ in that I feel the music just speaks for itself as in - no 'discussion' over a 'critical analysis' can make any difference whatsoever to the actual music so I personally consider it a pointless exercise. All I wanted to do is explain why, I personally, feel that way - because I was interested in where we differ (and still am).

EvF