Kanzen is always right Spam

Except when he's wrong.

Which is never, because he is always right.

Always.

Except for Diesels and gas turbines.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP
Who says a musician has to have lasting power,


To be influential to other musicians to spark creativity and drive culture. If the song is some flash in the pan, it will become a meme and repeat itself over and over. It might not be the exact same instruments, or composition, or even lyrics, but it will repeat in some form or another. And what happens as it repeats? It stagnates the whole because no lasting change will push forward.

So what? Why does music have to be influential to anyone besides the listener. Music isn't made for musicians, its made for listeners. And again, who cares if it becomes a meme, if it served a purpose at the time, whats wrong with that?

Quote:

Originally posted by SP
Why is classical music that people used to waltz to any better or different than techno pop music that people dance to today?


Because classical music was refined through talent, work, inspiration, and meaning. Whereas now the techno-pop scene is full of people who spend a couple of hours on a virtual drum machine add some empty lyrics and release it. Of course with a few outliers of some talented individuals, Tiesto not being one of them.

Oh, so because music is easier to create now, its automatically garbage? The classical music that survived until today, survived mostly because it was the popular music of the day. Sure, Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach had talent, but they were probably viewed as sellouts during their time, hell Bach composed something like over 1000 pieces in his day...cranking them out like a pop star.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP
Watering down what is considered music? Please...could you be more arrogant?


Switching your attack to me instead of the actual argument at hand doesn't prove anything. And it still doesn't change the fact that most popular music is uninspired cash grab bullshit.

Take things out of context, and you can make them mean almost anything.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP
So you're the final say on whats considered music...give me a break.


Well you seem to think you have final say about any other subject, how is this any different from what you do? Also, indeed, give us a break.

Actually not true, unlike you who has attacked pop music and called it garbage, I have said that ANY music can be appreciated. I'm saying all music can be appreciated by anyone, you're the one saying that if you enjoy pop music, then you're the lowest common denominator.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP
Its what people want.


People's want has nothing to do with culture. It is the collective summation of the arts, non-genetic heritage, and scholarly achievement. No person has control over it, it is influenced by everyone as a whole.

Peoples want has EVERYTHING to do with culture. If the hawaiians didn't want or like to hula dance, there wouldn't be a hula today. If Americans didn't like shooting guns, there wouldn't be 2 in every house. If people rejected rap music in the 80's it likely wouldn't exist today. I agree that no one person has control over it, and this is my point exactly, people as a whole, as a listening public determine what will become culture in the future. Its not a conscious decision, but it happens none the less.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP
sometimes they want the Beatles, and sometimes they even want a anti commercialism band like Nirvana.


Here is the difference, The Beatles and Nirvana had meaning, creativity, and inspiration, not to mention the fact that they had talented people who worked hard to produce such works. Where as to day, you don't have to. You have a drum machine set to loops and you just sing nonsense with no meaning and no value and rake in the money.

Please. The Beatles when they first came out were viewed as a flash in the pan. Their lyrics were considered ridiculous and their appearance even more so. They might have offered something different, but they certainly weren't the first, they were just the most successful. Same thing with Nirvana, there were grunge bands before them, they didn't invent the genre. They weren't even hugely popular until after Cobain's death. Talented people?? I'd debate that, most of the early Beatles stuff is all 3 chord guitar, and catchy pop song lyrics. How is (was) Nirvana any more hard working and talented than Pharrell Williams? Both the Beatles and Nirvana struck a chord with people, it wasn't because they were the first of their style, it just happened. Just as the latest Avril song could strike a chord with people and could be considered a classic in 25 years.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP
My point is, people want what people want. there is ALWAYS something different to chose from, people just pick what they like.


And my point is if you continue to condition people to think that uninspired garbage is worth while that is all they will ever seek for. Just because you have been conditioned to eat dog food doesn't make it not dog food.

There will always be alternatives to pop music...always.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP
But its enjoyable, it puts a smile on my face and makes me wanna dance. I'm not saying that ALL music should be dance music, but ALL music should strike some sort emotion...and Happy does that in strides.


Still doesn't mean it isn't hollow refuse.

Any my point again is...so what if it is hollow refuse? It served a purpose, let it be.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP
Don't tell me I'm wrong, you weren't there, you didn't live in prehistoric times.


But you did the exact same thing in your post, you can't have it both ways you can't tell me I was wrong and then assert your baseless statements as fact.

music started as a method to share information, not to make each other feel happy. It all boils down to it was a part of proto-language to exchange information, not just to make you happy.

Fine, I agree that I did the exact same thing, but you seem to think that music was just invented because we needed a way to communicate...that it was invented out of necessity. I don't believe that for a second. I think its far more likely that it happened by accident when the first caveman to bang a stick against a rock found out her could make a sound, and that sound evolved into rhythm, and that rhythm evolved into music. I agree that music has been used as a form of communication, but I find it unlikely that its sole purpose was for communication. You simply don't sit down and write a language without knowing how to make the sounds first.

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

Except for Diesels and gas turbines.

And a lot of things....but he thinks he's right.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

So what? Why does music have to be influential to anyone besides the listener. Music isn't made for musicians, its made for listeners. And again, who cares if it becomes a meme, if it served a purpose at the time, whats wrong with that?

I have already answered this multiple times, I think you should re-read my posts if you don't already know the answer.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Oh, so because music is easier to create now, its automatically garbage?

I have already addressed this before; it is garbage because there is no inspiration, talent, exertion behind it. It is made to sell and that is all.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

The classical music that survived until today, survived mostly because it was the popular music of the day. Sure, Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach had talent, but they were probably viewed as sellouts during their time,

By who? Who would call them sell-outs? It isn't about it being popular, it is about garbage becoming popular because of the lowering of quality and the acceptance of it.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

hell Bach composed something like over 1000 pieces in his day...cranking them out like a pop star.

Except Bach had talent and everything he produced was complex and thoughtful. He didn't sit there and put four notes on a drum machine and call it a day.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Take things out of context, and you can make them mean almost anything.

Still doesn't address my standpoint and still doesn't help your stance.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Actually not true, unlike you who has attacked pop music and called it garbage, I have said that ANY music can be appreciated.

Being appreciated music isn't and being garbage aren't mutual exclusive.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

I'm saying all music can be appreciated by anyone, you're the one saying that if you enjoy pop music, then you're the lowest common denominator.

Never said that, you need some work on your reading comprehension. You're inserting made up statements to try and attack those.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Peoples want has EVERYTHING to do with culture.

You don't quite grasp how culture works, it isn't some sort of tangible thing that people can exert their will on.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

If the hawaiians didn't want or like to hula dance, there wouldn't be a hula today.

Your reasoning fails because you are functioning under a binary choice, a false dichotomy. Why does it fail? Because not all people share the exact same opinion on thing. Fifty-one percent of Hawaiians could absolutely despise Hula, but if the other forty-one percent still cling to it, it will be around, why? Because it is a collective, people's will has no control over it.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

If Americans didn't like shooting guns, there wouldn't be 2 in every house.

Except the majority of Americans want reasonable gun control laws passed, and the majority of Americans don't have guns. I know it was hyperbole on your part, but it in fact shows how absolutely wrong that previous part of your statement was. You assumed it was the US's culture that had guns despite most people being against it or not having weapons. Which proves my point, no one has direct influence over culture.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

If people rejected rap music in the 80's it likely wouldn't exist today.

Rap music isn't want it once was, that too has become shallow garbage. If you look back at rap, you can see a noticeable decline in quality and substance. Back in the 80's and 90's it was all about how they survived. Now it is audial masturbation talking about how much money they have and how many "bitches" they fuck. Rap music was ruined as well.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

I agree that no one person has control over it, and this is my point exactly, people as a whole,

So you are saying I'm wrong because my stance was right. Weird.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

as a listening public determine what will become culture in the future. Its not a conscious decision, but it happens none the less.

And that is why this stagnation and almost cancerous decline of quality into garbage is going to cause a shit mono-culture.

Baby, baby, baby oooh
Like baby, baby, baby nooo
Like baby, baby, baby oooh
I thought you'd always be mine (mine)

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Please. The Beatles when they first came out were viewed as a flash in the pan.

Really? When where they ever considered a flash in the pan? They were popping out albums consistently where always on the charts. They never let up in their releases.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Their lyrics were considered ridiculous and their appearance even more so. They might have offered something different, but they certainly weren't the first, they were just the most successful.

They were successful because they were competent musicians who put a lot of effort, meaning, and time into their work. I never once said they were original.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Same thing with Nirvana, there were grunge bands before them, they didn't invent the genre. They weren't even hugely popular until after Cobain's death.

Read above.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Talented people?? I'd debate that, most of the early Beatles stuff is all 3 chord guitar, and catchy pop song lyrics.

Show me someone on the top charts right now that exudes talent and hard work.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

How is (was) Nirvana any more hard working and talented than Pharrell Williams?

Hrmm, let's see.

Smells like Teen Spirit: Detailed and multi-layered instrument backing that was done on actual instruments even though the structure is basic. A song of teen revolution against the establishment, and it's own mockery of such an anthem. A contradiction upon itself and the system.

Happy: Composed entirely digitally. The meaning of the song? Be happy. Oh and go see Despicable Me 2 it theaters.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Both the Beatles and Nirvana struck a chord with people, it wasn't because they were the first of their style, it just happened.

Because they had talent and integrity about their work.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Just as the latest Avril song could strike a chord with people and could be considered a classic in 25 years.

That gave me the greatest laugh I've had all week. Well, outside of one of my neighbors (a college student) who called triple-A to have them change his tire.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

There will always be alternatives to pop music...always.

But the majority will remain stagnant and unfortunately it will begin to bleed into the alternative worsening it as well.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Any my point again is...so what if it is hollow refuse? It served a purpose, let it be.

Already stated before, go and re-read.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Fine, I agree that I did the exact same thing, but you seem to think that music was just invented because we needed a way to communicate...that it was invented out of necessity.

Because in times like that, everything was born of necessity. And those authors I mentioned before also firmly believe it too.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

I don't believe that for a second. I think its far more likely that it happened by accident when the first caveman to bang a stick against a rock found out her could make a sound, and that sound evolved into rhythm, and that rhythm evolved into music. I agree that music has been used as a form of communication, but I find it unlikely that its sole purpose was for communication. You simply don't sit down and write a language without knowing how to make the sounds first.

Because you are thinking about it in the wrong order. Music/singing, language, and communication started at the same level of verbal exchange. They branched off, but were still part of the same function.I would suggest you look up proto-language and motherese, another good book I forgot to mention was Dean Falk's Finding Our Tongues: Mothers, Infants and the Origins of Language. You can also check Nobou Masataka's Music, Evolution and Language and Fitch's The Evolution of Music in Comparative Perspective.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

And a lot of things....but he thinks he's right.

I forgot, women are always right because of because.

This person I know is looking to sell one of his rucksacks. It's a $500 bag, originally. It's unused but without tags, so he's asking 250 to 300. I think that's a fair price, yes?

Soo...

I dunno. What would Bangles say ?

Quote:

Originally posted by Bangledeshica

This person I know is looking to sell one of his rucksacks. It's a $500 bag, originally. It's unused but without tags, so he's asking 250 to 300. I think that's a fair price, yes?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/avril-lavigne-s-hello-kitty-video-pulled-amid-criticism-1.2619383

Damn Canadians and their love of war crimes: http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2014/04/24/justin-bieber-at-yasukuni-it-just-looked-pretty-honest/

Quote:

Originally posted by F1098

I dunno. What would Bangles say ?

...

The backpack is super sweet, and if the original retailer hadn't spent a month "processing" the order, that one guy Bangledeshica knows wouldn't have had to go and purchase a different backpack in time for his vacation he took in January. So yeah, 300 is a pretty solid deal, I think.

So what kind is it B?

I've been looking at the 511 All Hazards Prime and the TAD Fast Pack EDC for a while (both in black of course).

Eberlestock J79 Skycrane 2, in Coyote.
http://www.amazon.com/Eberlestock-Skycrane-System-Hydration-Sleeves/dp/B005TUDHKQ/

I want to eventually get a Mystery Ranch bag.

>Eberlestock J79 Skycrane 2, in Coyote.
> color selected is Dry Earth
> clicks Coyote Brown
>

Yeah, it's the same image.

But the Dry Earth is a lot more beige/tan. Like what sand typically looks like, and Coyote is a darker, more "dirt"-like color.

Black and Gunmetal Gray are superior.

Also thinking about buying into the Wasteland 2 access and creating the Quadfecta as the group and seeing how they fare.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kanzen

Black and Gunmetal Gray are superior.

Also thinking about buying into the Wasteland 2 access and creating the Quadfecta as the group and seeing how they fare.

Gray is straight solid, black (even though I have black bags) is not a good color. And pfft... Coyote or FDE is sweetness.

And Bangles would kick fucking shit at whatever that thing is you're talking about. Unless he gets killed instantly, or falls through the floor of the elevator at the level end, or goes idle, or whatever.

Sooo. I like music.