Thoyd Loki

If you don't want to explain what you meant, just say you don't explain your statements, and that you are just going to make flat assertions. Don't send me a link to a fallacy when I am attempting to understand what you are saying. Your entire post was without intellectual worth.

Except for this one. I suggest you examine every word of that definition. It is one of the most exacting definitions she ever used. Pay particular attention to the word sonorous. It is not there as hyperbole. Talking fast (and usually nasally) is not an example of sonorous even though man's diaphram is capable of producing sonorous sounds. Pavarotti produces a sonorous body when he sings, but not when he is ordering pasta. The electronic beats also fail as "period vibrations of a sonorous body" since they not even "body".

I had the same thought when I was writing it-ha! I really wanted to avoid the word poetry. This does not cover enough instances-if they exist. If some of this stuff is poetry, then Kipling, Whitman et all are gone. Do we call Spinal Tap's Big Bottoms, or Sex Farm Woman poetry as well? The destruction of poetry is what follows if we allow it to mean any sets of words in an organized order that is called such by he who made it. The same problem we are having with music. Lyrical was as close as I wanted to get - too close I guess. The whole focus of this music is the "lyric", what the person has to say. Everything else is secondary. The words are not sung, they are spoken, or auctioned as I like to say. The beat is a programmed (I saw an exception to this a few weeks ago) percussive track with bass tones added in. Usually this completes the piece. Sometimes there is the inclusion of a ripped piece of instumentation usually from someone else's work and slapped in as a track. There are obviously pieces of it that we recognize as elements of music. The question is, is it, as a whole, music? Here is another question. If I sit in front of my Mac all day and, using some midi and a drum machine make something with a beat and some notes in it, have I made music? Can we consider it music if no human played an instrument in its development? What if there were even words being sung but it was the speech program reading my typed text, but I chose the singing lady effect instead of regular speech? Where do we draw the line? Should Ahmed Best be eligable for best supporting actor Oscar (let's say people went crazy) for his portrayal of Jar Jar Binks in the last Star Wars even though he had no speaking lines, and probably wasn't even there? Was that acting?

My main point in posts 33 and 34. Nominalism is not a way to defend anything you might enjoy. It does matter what the defintion of music (or any concept) is. Does it matter if Hip Hop doesn't qualify as music? Does it have to be called music for you to enjoy it? Nobody ever said that this form of lyricism violated any intrinsic rules about what can come to the human ear (except the basterdization of the English language, not exactly the time of Homer, is it?).

Well, since I judge it to not be music, then it not being within the definition of music would not change my evaluation of it. I don't see anyone putting a tuna sandwich in a cd player and trying to tell me it's music, and no one is trying to tell me it doesn't matter either way. Although I must say that the cd spinner would make a very quiet, rhythmic thunk thunk against the bread for awhile, and then a slushy whirl against the fish meat, and then the album would be over, and then we could listen to some peanut butter brittle for awhile. If we are to put aside definitions, I don't see anything wrong with that either as long as I can count 1,2,3,4 to it while the sound lasts. Unless, of course, we are going to say that they have to have some kind of particular sounds, like drums, or some other percussive sound. Here is a working definition. A modern form of lyrical delivery delivered against a rhythmic background, and employing, sometimes, some elements of music for added color. No, function is not a criteria of evaluation, but rather the content of a given piece to the nature of music. About Kashmir. There were kids that did not light up to listen to Kashmir ( a fabulous song, I must say). I don't light up when I listen to it. The whole purpose of the tribal beat was to induce the state I mentioned. These were not 3 minute beats like our little ditties of today, this beat was employed for hours and hours. The creation of Kashmir was a commercial product for purchase by individuals for individuals (the concert notwithstanding). The tribal beat has no such relationship, and no such purpose. It is for the unthinking collective action of a group, to induce a certain psychological state as a group.

I agree, let's drop all words and logic and definitions. I am going to get blinding drunk right now, make sure my guitar is wildly out of tune, record an arhythmical drum track, slur out some obscenities, and call it music. When someone objects, I'll just blithely tell them it doesn't matter how it is viewed one way or the other. After all, words are just tags for loose assemblages of things that we arbitrarily decide to call by the same word, right?

Do you mean to say that melody is a primitive vulgarity in music, as plot is a primitive vulgarity in writing, as logic is a primitive vulgarity in philosophy? To induce a trance for the working of shaman miracles, and ritualistic sacrifices? To pray to the sun god, or the ceramonial reading of entrails? Tell me, after you eviscerate melody from music, what then is music thereafter?

A "beat" is fine. But if all you are going to do is cut and paste and loop a beat made on a machine, add in overbearing bass tones, and then talk endlessly to me over it, you haven't acheived music. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that that form is not capable of producing something that I would like (or incapable of having something in common with music besides a time signature). But, clearly, its modern practitioners are not going to do it. Its been dead in the progress department for years anyway. And it would demand a total rethinking of the entire genre. Something most "musicians" are no longer capable of.

That kind of rock music is still being played and recorded. I think people have it in their heads that music is some form of sending messages and expressing one's opinions, as if writing had not yet come into being, and they are modern day Homers. I just bought the Yayhoos today. Straight rock that you can tap your foot to; no big issues about FEEDING THE CHILDREN OF BANGLADESH!, or MY FATHER DIDN'T LOVE ME! I don't have a clue as to the modern state of country music (has it improved since Garth and Billy Ray pooped all over it?). But it was always pretty miserable, but not 100% I have heard enough of rap and hip hop to know that I hate it in every aspect. I hate the lack of melodies, harmonies, the focus on the "beat". I hate the fact that it is mainly non-instrumental, and usually consists of ripped pieces of others music. I hate the sense of life of all of it I have heard. Although this is only expressed in the words since the "music" itself is largely incapable of evoking emotion as music is supposed to do. Another thing that I hate, and is being shared more and more in rock music, is lyrics that are about that particular person and their particular problems and experiences, or pumping themselves up as the best mc (or bv, gh, jk, or whatever graffiti inspired acroynm they call themselves by). Thank goodness novelists and movie makers haven't resorted to this utterly boring subject matter. Fictional conversation George Lucas: Steven, I have this idea for a giant space opera for a movie. Steven Speilberg: Nah, man you should make a movie about how you got all over those other bitches, man. George Lucas: Ya! That's a great idea. Are you still making that movie about how your daddy left you and your mom for hoes?

With what? Positive lyrics and happy feeling are not synonymous. Of course, with today's almost obsessive focus on "what did X-artist god say?", I guess all one has to do now is merely put the word happy in their song, and that will be called a happy song.

Oh, I wasn't knocking Bonham, he was one tight, drunk-ass, drummer. But Peart has skills that few (none?) in that genre have, he must have worked like an animal to play like he does. The drum track in Tom Sawyer is still one of the best I think. If you listen to that just for the drums, he is doing all kinds of things, all over the place, and keeping that beat deep in the pocket the whole time. I could actually sit here all night analyzing that drumming. Moving Pictures will always be the best Rush album for me. When me and my childhood buddy first started doing music we had 3 albums that were our Holy Grail. Those will always be "the perfect albums" for me. Led Zepplin: Physical Graffiti AC/DC: For Those About to Rock, We Salute You Rush: Moving Pictures You might not believe me, but I do not know any Dave Matthews that I know of. Unless they have one of those songs that everyone knows, and I don't realize that I do. There is always music playing at my job, but I usually am tuned out. I would give it to Tool, at least in the context or time they are competing in. Anima is a great album. Although I hope they try to cover some different territory next time. The band is very talented, and Maynard could handle whatever he wanted - except, I guess, a happy tune.

Yeah, my first sentence that you quoted doesn't make it obvious, but the rest does, I am talking modern bands, the "in vogue for this micro-second". So, sorry, you are not going to get me in a "band-fight". I would say that Rush and Zep are pretty even on talent, till you get to drumming. I have to give it to Neil Peart. I mean, come on! Personally I don't make too much of what is being said (to an extent) but how, and how it fits in a song. "Objectivist lyrics" don't really matter to me one way or another (if I really need to, I could sing Galt's speech in the shower - I can hold a tune, boys) my morning song is BnB - although I guess that's not a negative song. Besides, I liked Rush long before I heard of Ayn Rand, or knew what Geddy was talking about. BTW - You left out Limelight. Shame on you.

How could he do it? By the time he got done loading the gun (if he could manage to acquire one) he'd forget why he was holding it. I doubt he suffers. He is not like a person that betrays values or is anti-value, they are simply not applicable to him.

First, I think Danny Carey is an awesome drummer, and Tool is one band I will make a huge exception for. They do some amazing stuff. I love Stealth from Anima, that is the creativeness that is largely missing nowadays. I am not going to debate the technical proficiency of individual guitarists. Only to say that those you mentioned along with Jimmy Page are head and tails above the gamut of modern tuned down "mush" guitar players nowadays. They all take Metallica lessons and call themselves guitar players. It is repetitive, boring, and destroys any potential a song may have. But, taking musicians as a whole, be they guitar players, drummers or singers, I have one qualification. They have to subordinate themselves to the song. Meaning, that I listen to a song for its totality, and I only will focus on a particular instrument or player with this end in mind. That is, to admire how that instrument fits and makes whole a song. That leads into the topic of production. I do not know what word would serve justice here. Or maybe I am using the right word and the modern songs just happen to suck anyway. Maybe the word I am looking for is atmosphere. Taking Kashmir as an example. It has an overall sound that is inchy and creeping and Plant sounds like he is falling into a well at points. It was its own particular air that is remembered and not duplicated. Everything else nowadays has the: da-nu-nu-nu-nu "I F****** hate you!" It is using depressing, myopically high-school social (anti-social), embarassingly autobilographical, and standard. In an all round fashion they take you nowhere, and inspire you to nothing much like a lifeless naturalistic novel. I think a lot of the technology is being wasted. Do you know I know at least ten peole who "play" instruments and do not even know the major scale, or read music, or even have an ear? And, yes, I agree the modern sounds are clearer and crisper. But, for the most part, I'd like to cover that up with a thick layer of static.

I like two of your selections, and I wouldn't worry about anyone bumbugging them. I would challenge anyone to name a band that has done anywhere near the songs that Led Zepplin has done. Where is there in modern "popular" music anything to match Stairway to Heaven or Kashmir (to name only two)? I ask that in two senses: 1: actual skill in playing 2: arrangement and production ability. Hell, three: the ability NOT to come up with something that is snoringly autobiographical. AC/DC is probably the easiest band to play from a purely technical point of view. And, yes, they have, in essence, come out with the same record 19 times in a row. But why? And why is it so popular to this day? Because they do (and are named after) the essence of rock and roll. Energy, frenetic energy, strength, power, "can do, will do" music. No matter the senselessness of their lyrics, the essence they have always had is marching over mountains one step a piece (listen to Jailbait or Back in Black for a clue). You can't help but to feel that foot start to tap and want to take on a life of its own. Also, I love their frontman Brian Johnson, He's 58, and he is still trying to rip that through his chest-no matter what. Gotta love it.

Well, "predanticism" is not a word, did you mean pedanticism, perhaps? You also misspelled misspelled; it is not two words, it is one (it is not named after Miss Spell, nor is it akin to missing a shot). And to finish it off, you misspelled "because". I would say you need some work in spelling. Or more concern for your readers, and how you present the English language. Or a decent spellchecker; those, however, will not teach you to spell.

1. Ayn Rand (100%) Click here for info 2. Aristotle (77%) Click here for info 3. John Stuart Mill (76%) Click here for info 4. Aquinas (66%) Click here for info 5. David Hume (64%) Click here for info 6. Jean-Paul Sartre (62%) Click here for info 7. Plato (59%) Click here for info 8. Thomas Hobbes (59%) Click here for info 9. Epicureans (57%) Click here for info 10. Nietzsche (56%) Click here for info 11. St. Augustine (55%) Click here for info 12. Cynics (54%) Click here for info 13. Jeremy Bentham (53%) Click here for info 14. Kant (53%) Click here for info 15. Stoics (52%) Click here for info 16. Spinoza (44%) Click here for info 17. Prescriptivism (30%) Click here for info 18. Ockham (29%) Click here for info 19. Nel Noddings (19%) Click here for info It is sort of subjective in that I did not interpret my answers in the same light as they sometimes did. As long as Kant is not in top ten, I'm happy!

Really? Nothing depressing about it at all? What about this snippet? What about the drinking? Why don't you try thinking instead of drinking? Spelled similar-very different. It reads like a diary for a Existentialism's site moderator. Do you 'moderate' while drinking?

Nah, he's here right now.

Wow, what a tiny little forum we'd have here. Here is a little smattering of excerpts from various postings of mine. Some snippets are complete posts, and without much content, some of snipped from large posting with a lot of content. Delete away! WilliamB, Please DO NOT put my name in a post like that. Did you go to the Immanuel Kant school of writing? Am I expected to read that? I was actually referring to thesweetscience on that. But, since you want it... I have. You are a pragmatist. Whatever your focus is on, it is not about truth. My proof is your last post to me (and the others). Now, for once, don't focus on the messenger, but at least take a glance at the message. Was this covered in OPAR? I missed the physics section of the book... I don't know Kung Fu. I was implying that I didn't believe you had attorneys. I thought you were a kid! Please! You have attorneys! And, I know Kung Fu! Hoo-yeow! Wow! That is a mind blower dude. You get my Most Ignorant Statement of the Year award. Holy cripes! I just busted a brain artery. Wow, I am officially out of all loops. I don't know any of the bands of the last 12 posts (except blink-182, and they should be flogged and burned in an alley). Think I'll go play some Stones. You are not kidding, Inquisitor80. There are ten mistakes in your last post alone! Eddie, learn how to use the quotes, your posts are very tedious to read. Thank You. Results of what? You sitting alone, dejected from the world so much you haven't heard the word Objectivsm outside your own mind in 20 years? The blame rests with you, brother, not your phantom "enemies" you obviously know very little about. Yeah, no kidding. When I posted my wish of revenge on Cannonball's head last night, I hoped it was going to come in the form of Mr. Speicher! Wow, what a smear job. I hope someone better able than I takes you to task for that, CB. That's OK, he's already banned himself from reality. And for now that is punishment enough You are wrong sir. I did that! I wasn't trying to get him to leave. But, when I spend time copying down text for him from Aristotle's Organon, and various other sources and hear no response but a restatement of the problem as if I and everyone else have said nothing, I get pissed. He (three times now) could only pick up on the jibes of my third post but yet again the logic part has flown over his head. I have no time to waste for one that will not even consider the opinion of Aristotle. To fire with ya! Besides, you can tell by his response to me that he is a big cry baby: "If I wouldn't get booted off for cursing...waaa!" I could see a little kid with diapers about to fill. Yeah, I don't recall Dagny being described as having a set of beef-liver lips on her face. I always resort to insults after one ignores logical arguments. The implication is given that that is all you can respond to. I was fully justified in smearing your face in whatever I wanted to. You were answered thoroughly about induction in two seperate threads by several people, and you keep spewing the same argument. And hey, I'm sorry you have no ability to reason. I'll be certain to ignore anything from you here on out. Yes, I have dozens of them. So, start the argument, and it better be better than Pft; is that a farting sound or something? That would be a mighty fine idea...if we were living in the Matrix!

Well, we do know about your drinking weekends. You do realize that you gave us access to your online diary? Very depressing... There is also the entire post of Betsy's pointing out the "history".

Not that I can tell (very limited resourses in that department). But, I find it odd that NIJamesHughes was in a conversation with Mr. Speicher at 1:22am (last post by NIJamesHughes at 1:05am) in the Homosexuality thread in Basic Questions. Then at 1:27am (a mere five minutes later) the first of Mr. Speicher's three posts is deleted-all three within 3 minutes. Mighty fast reading.

Excellent, lets dive into the hairsplitting. Yes, I did use the quoted word as a form of irony, that was the original intent of my usage. I was not trying to distance myself after the fact in my explanation to him. The intent was the same from inception to explanation. Now, the very use of the quotes does place a distance from the user, but that was my original intention which demands that you know the original thread that was refered to. The thread was entirely forgettable in terms of conflict between these two. This raised the question in my mind of why this topic would be his first since April 30th. Thus, the use of the "nemesis".

The obvious answer to you is NO, I will not take you on faith. Meaning that I do not believe what you say. You are by your own actions out of the bounds of evidence and yet want us to receive your word. Your question amounted to, "Yeah, I destroyed the evidence. And now I am going to tell you what he said second-hand. What are you going to do about it?" BTW, Can you please delete your posts? They violate (profusely) the spelling and grammar rules of the forum.

Don't try to play me for a fool. First, I am not scared, certainly not by you. And you don't know what the argument from intimidation means. Or else you realized the brazeness of your remark, and are trying to back out of it by turning an accusation on me. I was being strictly serious in my response. Your question was not one that invited a response. It was rhetorical in nature and you know it. "What else can you do?" With all evidence destroyed, what do you think should be one's response should be to your question?