puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,42 • DeAge™ : 7915 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
Bsentini, it's still not clear to you: we are discussing OBJECTIVE TASTE APPLIED TO MUSIC, not "music in general." You're missing the point: me and the others couldn't care less about practical examples, what we want to know is: BUT ARE YOU REALLY CONVINCED THAT MUSICAL TASTE (not just ja, ALL MUSIC) CAN BE OBJECTIFIED? Because it’s clear that Italian isn’t your strong suit, but this is what you stated in the previous sentences.
Voto:
Yes, but English is a language and not letters.>>> But you said the opposite before!
Voto:
<<< To say it's objective doesn't mean to say it's prettier or uglier... what are you talking about? Name: emanuelebasentini | Date: 7/2/2006 | Rating: | Rating of the Album: >>> Basentini, you have extensive musical knowledge but you don't know the meaning of Italian terms. You talked for an hour about culture, and you don't even know what objective means. >>>
Voto:
Are you serious? No, are you really that messed up? Languages are Letters? UUUUUUUUUAAAHA HA AHA HA AH... TERRIBLE!!! LANGUAGES ARE LETTERS! YOU'RE IN BAD SHAPE!
Voto:
<<< Music is not sound; music is a language made up of sounds.. it's like saying English is letters.. no, English is a language made up of letters.. with a history, a development.. etc.. etc.. the mistake you’re making is childish and chilling >>> AH AH AH AHA AH!!!! LEGENDARY!!! UUUAHA AH AHA HA!!! You may have studied music, but it seems you haven't done much else in your life. English is A LANGUAGE, and languages are born as SOUND, which THEN was transcribed into LETTERS. Sound/VERBAL communication comes before WRITTEN. And to top it all off... oh oh oh... music was born as SOUND... AND THEN became DEFINED NOTES. Or do you want to tell me that the Roman war drummer came to school with you?
Voto:
BUT HOW WHERE DID YOU SAY IT? BUT HERE -> .music is not subjective at all, but it evokes sensations that are if not identical, similar, among people of equal cultural background... centuries of musicology would go to waste if it weren't true... and not only that...
Name: emanuelebasentini | Date: 7/2/2006 | Rating: | Rating for the Album <- oh, I'm starting to think that you don't know how to speak Italian: in Italian, saying that something is NOT subjective is equivalent to saying that it is OBJECTIVE. Or not?
Voto:
Please tell me that you misspoke in the heat of the moment and that we misunderstood you. Because the thought that I understood correctly and at the same time that you are one of the most esteemed teachers in Italy makes me sad. No offense, but really, it makes me feel down.
Voto:
Music is sound, therefore by defining objective music, you also define sounds as objective. I repeat, I fully agree that a musician can and SHOULD be categorized by innovation and importance. But for you to tell me that one musician is more important or more innovative and thus more beautiful than another, absolutely not. What strikes me about all these discussions is just the phrase "music is objective"; the rest is merely a matter of perspective.
Voto:
But come on, tell us the truth: you're having fun messing with us. I can understand all your talks about OBJECTIVE MUSICAL IMPORTANCE (always relative to the field in question), and I can get all your discussions about OBJECTIVE MUSICAL INNOVATION; those are perfectly feasible and demonstrable arguments, no doubt about it. Who could argue with that? But the idea that you can prove that ONE SOUND is OBJECTIVELY MORE BEAUTIFUL than another just makes me laugh. Do you realize? It's been "de gustibus" since the Romans, and now you come along to explain that a Farfisa E Minor is objectively better than a Trombone G? Come on...
Voto:
You're delusional… considering that you are the ones who conform, clouded by ignorance and obscured by this stupid, idiotic relativism… let’s do this: prove to me that the A note of the guitar is better than the A note of the piano, go ahead. I like the sound of the piano less than that of the guitar: explain, come on, why? Go on, for a luminary like you it should be simple, you are enlightened by knowledge, go on, tell us.