[12:35:54 AM] Templar: riskyriskyrisky
[12:36:05 AM] Templar: read the damn music thread
[12:36:23 AM] Templar: and b4 you post
[12:36:32 AM] Templar: i wanna hear your opinion
[12:38:15 AM] Risk: k
[12:38:16 AM] Risk: just a sec
[12:39:25 AM] Risk: Oh, on the music pushed made by pushing a button thing?
[12:39:31 AM] Risk: music made*
[12:40:00 AM] Templar: fking hate autotune...
[12:40:11 AM] Templar: and beat makers
[12:42:27 AM] Templar: i have my next response nearly ready.
[12:42:39 AM] Templar: but i need some help with a bit of it.
[12:43:00 AM] Risk: Autotune is shit. Beatmakers are shit. But it's not because they're artificial. It's because of the way they're used to cut composition out of music. If you look at the way older music is composed, it has more variation, more chords, more variety; more individuality. The same could be done with newer methods of creating music. You could compose something completely artificial and it could still be good. The problem is that that isn't happening. They're appealing to base instincts and impulses by making their music fit a single formula rather than creating and composing something unique.
[12:43:23 AM] Templar: so I'm technically right
[12:43:30 AM] Templar: but wrong at the same time
[12:43:51 AM] Risk: You're making the argument that it's bad because of how it's played. You're right in that it's bad, but for the wrong reason.
[12:44:04 AM] Risk: Just a second.
[12:44:05 AM] Templar: I still prefer my acoustics
[12:44:34 AM] Risk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgfL7cixH74
[12:44:35 AM] Templar: over machine made stuff
[12:44:42 AM] Risk: That right there. Completely artificial in many parts.
[12:44:45 AM] Risk: But tell me what you think of it.
[12:44:56 AM] Templar: ..they played this in space jam
[12:45:36 AM] Risk: That right there is how you use artificial sounds correctly.
[12:45:42 AM] Templar: i still think that there are subtle differences that machines cant make, but real acoustics can.
[12:45:48 AM] Risk: There are, yes.
[12:45:55 AM] Templar: like the sound of you playing with your teeth
[12:45:57 AM] Risk: But that's just because they're different instruments.
[12:46:08 AM] Risk: Computers and synthesizers have become instruments.
[12:46:15 AM] Risk: They just aren't usually played properly.
[12:46:34 AM] Templar: i don't like that, and i know you see something wrong with it too.
[12:46:40 AM] Risk: What's that?
[12:46:46 AM] Templar: i dunno
[12:46:51 AM] Templar: it feels like
[12:47:03 AM] Templar: it takes personality away from the music
[12:47:33 AM] Templar: you can't play a computer underneath your legs or behind your back
[12:47:54 AM] Risk: It's not about what the music is played on; it's about how the music is composed. Sure, people will still have preferences based on the sounds of the instruments, and yours may be leaning towards acoustics. But the reason modern music is shit is not because of what it's being played on; it's because of what's being played.
[12:48:04 AM] Templar: aight
[12:48:09 AM] Templar: so read this
[12:48:19 AM] Templar: and tell me if it's pretty much correct
[12:48:22 AM] Templar: It matters how it does it because music That is great is designed to lift the mind and, however you choose to take this, the soul. When music becomes timeless, It is because it makes us think, and makes us feel from places that we don't normally visit within ourselves. It Enlightens us. Classical Music is a great example of this, and due to it's enlightenment era inspiration, It focuses on the uplifting of thought and provokes very hard emotions, causing us to reflect upon what we do. This Is why classical music is still around. It doesn't reference pop culture or encourage us to be maniacs, but rather tells us to look at ourselves and improve ourselves. I can also give as examples Rush's 2112 Overture, Stairway to Heaven, Freebird, and most of the music made by Kansas. In fact, although Rock and Roll has pretty drastic sexual undertones, most of it at least encourages us to think about deeper meanings behind the words. Pink Floyd has so many meanings crammed into their songs that it isn't even funny.


The mainstream "new" music really just doesn't get that there is more to life than sex. I can certainly respect that viewpoint due to the times we live in, where spiritualism has all but faded away from the world, which is now nearly entirely materialistic. But I cannot Condone it, as it goes against my Principals and Morals.
[12:49:18 AM] Risk: You sound like the people who criticized rock and roll when it was new.
[12:49:24 AM] Templar: no
[12:49:26 AM] Templar: trust me
[12:49:31 AM] Templar: they were waaaaay worse
[12:49:42 AM] Risk: "Back in my day.."
[12:49:45 AM] Templar: we went over that in philo class
[12:50:01 AM] Templar: and so what if i do?
[12:50:16 AM] Templar: we both know the new music isn't being played to potential
[12:50:27 AM] Templar: and that's what i get across
[12:50:31 AM] Risk: Rock and Roll was blamed on the devil. Pop is blamed on instinct. Everything is blamed on something, but that sort of blanket statement is as ignorant as you can possibly be about it.
[12:51:31 AM] Risk: And when you start saying music is bad because it goes against your own principles and morals, that's essentially admitting that you can't come up with anything bad about it from a musical standpoint. That's saying "I don't think this is good because, well, I don't want it to be around."
[12:51:38 AM] Templar: ok
[12:51:57 AM] Templar: how bout all it is is one goddamn beat over and over and over?
[12:52:04 AM] Risk: Covered that
[12:52:21 AM] Risk: [12:47 AM] Risk:

<<< It's not about what the music is played on; it's about how the music is composed.
[12:52:33 AM] Templar: how bout it's a souless, steaming pile of shit, at least concerning mainstream, that is just out there for themoney
[12:53:20 AM] Risk: Again, that's what I'm saying it is. I'm just also saying that you need to stop blaming morals, sex, or the instruments upon which the music is played.
[12:53:37 AM] Templar: ...why sex?
[12:53:52 AM] Templar: It's is way oversexualized
[12:54:09 AM] Templar: There are no other problems adressed
[12:54:16 AM] Risk: You know where the term Rock and Roll comes from? "Rock and Roll" originally meant "fucking".
[12:54:24 AM] Templar: i do know that
[12:54:33 AM] Templar: but they didnt say it
[12:54:36 AM] Risk: Sex is pretty deeply ingrained in the music you're trying to promote.
[12:54:44 AM] Templar: I went over that
[12:54:48 AM] Risk: And yet you criticize another form of music for it.
[12:55:01 AM] Templar: i critisize their approach
[12:55:29 AM] Risk: Here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atxUuldUcfI
[12:55:32 AM] Templar: ...wow jayz
[12:55:35 AM] Risk: What do you think that song is talking about? Hm?
[12:55:45 AM] Templar: just rip off nirvana why dont you
[12:55:52 AM] Risk: Or this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atxUuldUcfI
[12:56:09 AM] Risk: Or hell, even this, to an extent? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RAQXg0IdfI
[12:56:13 AM] Risk: Sex
[12:56:13 AM] Templar: I know ther are songs like that
[12:56:17 AM] Risk: It's all sex
[12:56:18 AM] Templar: But
[12:56:22 AM] Templar: Literally
[12:56:25 AM] Risk: Yes, and you don't criticize them for it.
[12:56:31 AM] Risk: So why do you criticize the new ones for it?
[12:56:39 AM] Risk: It's not about the sex; you're making sex the fallpoint.
[12:56:42 AM] Templar: because i can find mainstream stuff like this:
[12:56:58 AM] Templar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH2w6Oxx0kQ
[12:57:04 AM] Templar: that was made at the same time
[12:57:10 AM] Templar: and was also popular
[12:57:37 AM] Templar: I can't find new mainstream music that ISNT about sex
[12:57:51 AM] Templar: Or, oh god, my life is so hard
[12:58:00 AM] Templar: or "moneymoneymoney
[12:58:29 AM] Templar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31xa0CLbcls
[12:58:33 AM] Risk: But that doesn't change the fact that you're criticizing it on a song-by-song basis for a trend that's across the board.
[12:59:04 AM] Templar: Im critizising the artists that can't think for themselves
[12:59:21 AM] Templar: waitwait wait
[12:59:30 AM] Templar: can you talk?
[12:59:32 AM] Risk: Yeah, okay, that one is pretty bad. But you're assuming that those bad ones didn't exist before. The fact is, they're bad, and therefore they're forgotten after their time.
[12:59:51 AM] Templar: Find one new mainstream song
[12:59:51 AM] Risk: When is the last time JayZ was relevant?
[12:59:59 AM | Edited 1:00:29 AM] Templar: that isn't about sex or money
[1:00:10 AM] Templar: and he's artist of the year again
[1:00:41 AM] Templar: or was last year
[1:01:56 AM] Templar: There are no points raised in this newage stuff. there are no importaint, underlying themes or arguments.
[1:02:03 AM] Risk: I never said there were.
[1:02:10 AM] Risk: [12:58 AM] Risk:

<<< But that doesn't change the fact that you're criticizing it on a song-by-song basis for a trend that's across the board.
[1:02:12 AM] Risk: Across the board.
[1:02:13 AM] Risk: It is.
[1:02:19 AM] Templar: that's what I'm trying to argu is what makes it bad
[1:02:22 AM] Risk: But that's not the reason it's bad.
[1:02:30 AM] Templar: i think that it does
[1:02:46 AM] Templar: No spiritual uplifting?
[1:02:55 AM] Risk: They're focusing on one point more than old music did. But old music was able to focus on that point and still be good music.
[1:02:59 AM] Templar: nothing that makes you think?
[1:03:29 AM] Risk: The point matters, sure, and it's a shame that there's less that focuses on anything else now, but that isn't why the music making the point is bad.
[1:03:48 AM] Templar: Why do you think it's bad?
[1:03:53 AM] Risk: Here. This song is pure sex, and again, like the others, is good music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcCNcgoyG_0
[1:04:41 AM] Templar: granted
[1:04:47 AM] Templar: but
[1:04:52 AM] Risk: It's bad because it's repetitive, poorly-composed, and rather than producing something original it uses the same beat over and over song after song, and generates no new content.
[1:05:02 AM] Templar: I don't hear the word bitch or fuck in that song.
[1:06:02 AM] Risk: How blatant it is goes along with the composition. That song conveys the same message as new music does, but it does so in an original way with original wording and tune. New music doesn't bother with any of that. They don't bother lyrically or compositionally.
[1:06:21 AM] Templar: i thought that was my whole argument?
[1:06:44 AM] Templar: they don't make you think
[1:07:04 AM | Edited 1:07:11 AM] Risk: Neither does Slow Ride. Slow Ride is still pretty clearly just about fucking all night.
[1:07:13 AM] Templar: ...true
[1:07:14 AM] Templar: but
[1:07:24 AM] Templar: what's gonna be remembered in 100 years?
[1:07:31 AM] Templar: 2112 or slow ride?
[1:08:20 AM | Edited 1:08:49 AM] Risk: Probably both. Granted, Rush is more prominent than Foghat, but how about Sunshine of Your Love or Any Way You Want It?
[1:08:33 AM] Risk: Same arguments apply to those.
[1:08:54 AM] Templar: What makes classical music great?
[1:10:04 AM] Risk: The composition. The tune. And the fact that the lack of lyrical contribution makes it timeless in that it does not reference culture or trends in any way. It relies purely on the compositional skill of the artist to invoke emotions.
[1:10:27 AM] Risk: Even classic rock leans towards the trends and culture of the time.
[1:10:44 AM] Templar: I think it's the way that it invokes though risk.
[1:10:51 AM] Templar: thought*
[1:11:05 AM] Templar: fact is
[1:11:17 AM] Templar: what makes music great is a matter of opinion.
[1:11:31 AM] Risk: Yes, at an individual level, sure.
[1:12:02 AM] Templar: I listen to floyd when i want to hear points raised about rebelling against an opressive system and culture
[1:12:40 AM] Templar: i also listen to them to remind myself of what could happen if we overthrow those same systems.
[1:13:00 AM] Risk: Now you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
[1:13:10 AM] Templar: granted, the fact that they are absolutly amazing at composition doesn't hurt
[1:13:27 AM] Templar: have you watched another brick in the wall?
[1:13:41 AM] Risk: Their composition is what makes the music worth making that point though.
[1:13:43 AM] Templar: anarchy destroys itself
[1:13:55 AM] Risk: Here, new music that makes the same point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiX7GTelTPM
[1:14:00 AM] Templar: but i think the point makes it timeless.
[1:14:02 AM] Risk: Well, relatively new.
[1:14:33 AM] Templar: this music does not consider why they are rebelling though
[1:15:39 AM] Risk: Sure it does. They're rebelling what they view as an unjust and unfair system that's keeping them repressed. They just say that in the form of "Fuck da police" with a few blatant examples instead of using thought-invoking metaphor.
[1:15:55 AM] Templar: trying to bring racism into it really doesn'thelp them.
[1:16:41 AM] Risk: But the racism is that they are (or at least claim they are) rebelling against.
[1:17:09 AM] Risk: In the time of Sabbath and Floyd, Vietnam was the point of debate. At the time of that song, it was racial profiling.
[1:17:37 AM] Risk: "Searchin my car, lookin for the product
Thinkin every nigga is sellin narcotics"
[1:17:39 AM] Risk: From that song.
[1:17:41 AM] Templar: But, they literally say
[1:18:02 AM] Templar: "i don't care if they're black or white, fuck da police"
[1:18:59 AM] Risk: They view the system as a whole as being against them. It is possible for a black person to still view black people differently than they view white people, you know.
[1:19:17 AM] Templar: yes, i do
[1:19:24 AM] Templar: I work in downtown
[1:19:33 AM] Risk: The point is that they're rebelling not against the individuals, but against the system as a whole.
[1:19:50 AM] Templar: ok
[1:19:54 AM] Templar: i see your point
[1:19:56 AM] Templar: and theirs
[1:20:06 AM] Templar: but theirs is horribly made.
[1:20:08 AM] Risk: Now, it's still a terrible song with terrible lyrics and composition
[1:20:31 AM] Risk: But they make the same sort of points as the old stuff.
[1:20:36 AM] Risk: Because human nature does not change.
[1:20:52 AM] Templar: we don't even know what human nature is
[1:21:19 AM] Risk: Trends in human thoughts, emotions, and opinions.
[1:21:41 AM] Templar: ...no i mean, really, we have no idea what it is.
[1:21:52 AM] Risk: Can we say "It's exactly this"? Maybe not. But we can compare it and see that the effects of it have remained consistent over thousands of years.
[1:22:10 AM] Templar: No philosopher has made a standing conclusion about human nature.
[1:22:23 AM] Risk: That's not even remotely close to the point I'm making.
[1:22:39 AM] Risk: We can't conclude "human nature is this", but we can observe and compare the effects of it just fine.
[1:22:40 AM] Templar: you brought up human nature
[1:22:48 AM] Templar: it's my fav tipic
[1:22:52 AM] Templar: topic
[1:22:56 AM] Risk: But at the moment, irrelevant.
[1:22:58 AM] Templar: i have to rant
[1:23:35 AM] Templar: did you know da vinci was wrong about things?
[1:23:47 AM] Risk: Everyone's been wrong about things.
[1:24:06 AM] Templar: ...just wanted to see if that would set you off
[1:24:48 AM] Templar: anyway
[1:24:56 AM] Templar: back to the real debate
[1:25:12 AM] Templar: what do you think i have to change to make my argument work?
[1:25:32 AM] Templar: It matters how it does it because music That is great is designed to lift the mind and, however you choose to take this, the soul. When music becomes timeless, It is because it makes us think, and makes us feel from places that we don't normally visit within ourselves. It Enlightens us. Classical Music is a great example of this, and due to it's enlightenment era inspiration, It focuses on the uplifting of thought and provokes very hard emotions, causing us to reflect upon what we do. This Is why classical music is still around. It doesn't reference pop culture or encourage us to be maniacs, but rather tells us to look at ourselves and improve ourselves. I can also give as examples Rush's 2112 Overture, Stairway to Heaven, Freebird, and most of the music made by Kansas. In fact, although Rock and Roll has pretty drastic sexual undertones, most of it at least encourages us to think about deeper meanings behind the words. Pink Floyd has so many meanings crammed into their songs that it isn't even funny.


The mainstream "new" music really just doesn't get that there is more to life than sex. I can certainly respect that viewpoint due to the times we live in, where spiritualism has all but faded away from the world, which is now nearly entirely materialistic. But I cannot Condone it, as it goes against my Principals and Morals.

Maybe they do have to change things around a lot, maybe i chose the wrong thing to target.
[1:25:46 AM] Templar: what in there is bad and wrong.
[1:26:39 AM] Risk: Everything. You're arguing that modern music is bad because of how it's played and the messages it conveys, when old music often used the same artificial sounds (Hell, the Beatles quit touring because they couldn't produce the artificial sounds they wanted live due to limited computing power) and made the same points.
[1:27:16 AM] Templar: i thought you were with me on the how it's played?
[1:28:24 AM] Risk: No, I said right from the start it doesn't matter what it's played on, and I even gave you that song, Fly Like An Eagle, which is almost entirely computer-generated, as an example. I said that it's what is being played that matters; not how it's played.
[1:28:51 AM] Templar: ...
[1:29:18 AM] Templar: wouldn't that be an argument not against how it's played, but what is used to play it?
[1:29:35 AM] Risk: What do you mean when you say "how it's played", exactly?
[1:29:37 AM] Templar: how it's played more refers to how they made it
[1:29:53 AM] Risk: If you're referring to the composition of it, then yes, that I agree with you on.
[1:29:58 AM] Templar: ^
[1:30:07 AM] Templar: wut u said
[1:30:22 AM] Templar: can you talk, or is it too late?
[1:31:09 AM] Risk: I can talk, but I'm planning to post this discussion on the music thread because we've pretty much completed the debate you and Soap started. Can't post stuff that happens over voice.
[1:31:21 AM] Templar: ye, i know
[1:31:33 AM] Templar: wait, the entire thing?
[1:31:50 AM] Risk: Kinda long to do the entire thing, but at least a large portion of it.
[1:32:11 AM] Templar: can we first come to an conclusion.
[1:32:25 AM] Templar: a definite, point by point conclusion?
[1:32:33 AM] Templar: discussed via talking?
[1:32:56 AM | Edited 1:33:09 AM] Risk: Also, if you want to get back into how everyone, including da Vinci, has been wrong, might I bring up the fact that Socrates criticized written communication and viewed it as a detriment to society?
[1:33:11 AM] Templar: I think he was right to an extent
[1:33:29 AM] Templar: but past that, yea.....
[1:33:42 AM] Templar: the human mind isn't unlimited
[1:34:05 AM] Risk: He completely ignored that written communication could be used to save information and work for generations.
[1:34:24 AM] Risk: Socrates was kind of a dense motherfucker.
[1:34:46 AM] Templar: well, his idea was that being taught via personal communication was more uplifting to the soul.
[1:35:00 AM] Templar: and he was really into the whole soul thing.
[1:35:19 AM] Templar: older gen teaches younger gen.
[1:35:20 AM] Risk: Yeah, I know, and he thought written communication would make people less inclined to practice their memories. But he ignored the positive attributes of it entirely.
[1:35:45 AM] Templar: fk this, im calling you
[1:35:56 AM] Risk: I gotta get to bed in like 10 minutes.
[1:35:57 AM] Risk: But fine.