puntiniCAZpuntini

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!

<<< 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?

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

Ah, you narrow-minded people: music is music, it's not just Jazz. You’re stuck in a terrible mindset; we’re no longer in the 50s.

Basentini, how can you say first that a discipline is objective, and then talk about open-mindedness? Either you don't know the meaning of the two terms in Italian, or you have unclear ideas. You see, none of us are saying that we are right and you are wrong; we are all repeating that everyone is free to voice their opinions, and everyone perceives things in their own way and taste. You insist on being right, while others are wrong. This is mental closure. It’s the first time I’ve engaged in a serious discussion on this site, but seriously, it seems to me that you lack contact with reality. Everything you have studied is not proven in the real world: because it cannot be done. You repeat words and structures that you have read from someone who read them from another... without practical demonstration. You’re just a small pawn in a closed circle of conformists; you are part of a uniform mass that thinks the same way and believes they are correct, like a Nazi. Just as the Nazi insinuated that the Aryan race was superior without any practical evidence, you insinuate that your music is better than others, without any practical demonstration. And I repeat, I don't say that mine is better, I only say that I cannot prove it just as you cannot. You have studied music, but the human brain is far more complex than the four scores you’ve memorized. Your stance, your arrogance in knowing and believing you are right, cracks me up. You talk about hot air with a starting discussion that is "music." The only thing to base fixed rules on is sound engineering, but even the greatest expert in this field can never prove that Charlie Parker is better than Eminem. You can demonstrate that a certain sound elicits specific reactions in the ear... but you can never prove that one thing is more beautiful than another. Damn, we’re at the ABC level: "what is beautiful is not what is beautiful, but what is pleasing." You can only prove that someone is technically better than another, and that’s it. And with that, what do you achieve? You achieve the boxing in of art into a banal exercise that recycles continuously... what a load of crap.

And I reiterate that I absolutely do not want to say that I have a better taste than yours; on the contrary, I want to say that you have your own, and I have mine. And they are equally valid. Then, it’s undeniable that if we talk about pure technique, you are light-years ahead of me; surely you can deconstruct a piece you’ve heard just once and play it backwards after 5 minutes, but... so what? What can you prove with that? Sound is perceived differently by everyone; for example, I love low frequencies. I could listen to 2 hours of bass without getting tired, while after 2 minutes of scales on the guitar, I yawn. After studying for months, I could say, "technically, scales are better than bass," but then I go home, I feel like listening to music... and I put the bass back on.