Do you like funky house?

Fintomiginto · 02-12-2008 6:00pm

Irlbo wrote: »

One word ''Popcorn'',if you've been there,you know what Im talking about

I agree that popcorn was the biggest kip full of knackers ever, the dredges of society went there, but they never played funky house there mate. They played horrible grinding depressing electro house. Also before the White Horse closed they hadnt played funky house in a couple of years. So to say that either of them was full of knackers because they played funky house is fundamentally wrong because neither of them played that genre.

brianc27 · 02-12-2008 6:05pm

Zascar wrote: »

Off the top of my head, here is a tune I've always loved:

Soul Central - Strings Of Life (Danny Krivit Re-Edit)

I'm certainly no expert when it comes to production etc, but i think this is a beautifully put together track. It just really uplifting and out of the many times I have heard this played out in bars & clubs, its always gets a fantastic reaction from the crowd and gets the place bouncing. That is the aim at the end of the day, isn't it?

have you ever heard of 'rhythm is rhythm'

ntlbell · 02-12-2008 6:07pm

seannash wrote: »

doesnt do it for me im afraid but its definitely one that everyone else seems to like.
ive seen it wreck floors though,people go mad for it when its dropped:D

It's ok, just tell yourself to like it and you will, you have total control

seannash · 02-12-2008 6:08pm

brianc27 wrote: »

have you ever heard of 'rhythm is rhythm'

oh no here come the oldschoolers

:D

(j/k)

seannash · 02-12-2008 6:13pm

ntlbell wrote: »

It's ok, just tell yourself to like it and you will, you have total control

smartass:D:D

actually hearing it and seeing the reaction did put it in a whole new light for me,i appreciated the impact it had on most people and my view changed in that respect.i knew that if i ever dropped it it would work even though in my mind it wouldnt.
still wouldnt drop it though ha ha

ntlbell · 02-12-2008 6:16pm

seannash wrote: »

but i know for a fact i have made a concious effort to try and like certain types of music before,sometimes my opinion of it changes sometimes it doesnt but before i listened to it again i had made up my mind on it.i didnt like it.
arctic monkeys second album for example.i had listened to it and didnt really like it,one or two songs.got tickets to there gig so i went back to familiarise myself with the songs off the album that i didnt like before,just so id know what was going on at the gig.
heard those songs live and it changed my mind about them(plus the subsequent listens)
again when i was younger my brother used to play elton johns best of cd and also some disco tracks.id heard them all before and never liked them.id made my decision.but now that im older i like them,i appreciate them much more.
so i didnt like them before(even after hearing elton john for a million times)but now im older i like them,i appreciate them

the only control you had in the above was to listen to it and give it another go, no one is saying you can't like something straight away, just about everything in my music collection that i love i didn't like it at the start.

But I didn't control the not liking at the start and i had no control over starting to like it. the only part i control is to put the cd in the player or not.

liking it or disliking has nothing to do with me it's totally and utterly out of my control.

I like lots of albums now I hated when i was younger in fact when I was about 14 if it wasn't moving at 180BPM i didn't want to know

now i can't stand gabba or happy hardcore but again, there not choices i made i stopped liking it, i didn't _choose_ to stop liking it I CHOSE to stop listening to it

these are the finer points that haven't sunk in yet, give it time grass hopper :P

brianc27 · 02-12-2008 6:17pm

seannash wrote: »

oh no here come the oldschoolers :D

(j/k)

i just find it strange that someone who claims to like electronic music would refer to a complete bastardisation of a track such as that soul central effort and not the original of it, there was uproar over that soul central version amongst underground house music heads when it came out a few year ago.

for the record the 'rhythm is rhythm -strings of life' fcuking wrecks my head, way way way to over played over the years, even heard it this weekend

ps i hate oldschool

ntlbell · 02-12-2008 6:21pm

brianc27 wrote: »

i just find it strange that someone who claims to like electronic music would refer to a complete bastardisation of a track such as that soul central effort and not the original of it, there was uproar over that soul central version amongst underground house music heads when it came out a few year ago.

for the record the 'rhythm is rhythm -strings of life' fcuking wrecks my head, way way way to over played over the years, even heard it this weekend

ps i hate oldschool

Maybe because they don't give two f*cks what people on the "underground house scene" think? who the f*ck are these people anyway?

the cult of junior vasquez?

ntlbell · 02-12-2008 6:24pm

seannash · 02-12-2008 6:27pm

brianc27 wrote: »

i just find it strange that someone who claims to like electronic music would refer to a complete bastardisation of a track such as that soul central effort and not the original of it, there was uproar over that soul central version amongst underground house music heads when it came out a few year ago.

for the record the 'rhythm is rhythm -strings of life' fcuking wrecks my head, way way way to over played over the years, even heard it this weekend

ps i hate oldschool

never liked the original either although alot of people did too.the soul central one was just an update,nothing wrong with giving a track a new lick of paint.
if i had to choose id pick the new version.it sounds alot better.
you dont have to automatically post the original of a track if its and update i guess,

Fintomiginto · 02-12-2008 6:53pm

seannash wrote: »

never liked the original either although alot of people did too.the soul central one was just an update,nothing wrong with giving a track a new lick of paint.
if i had to choose id pick the new version.it sounds alot better.
you dont have to automatically post the original of a track if its and update i guess,

I actually much prefer the original. Years ahead of its time. Im not old enough to know if it was overplayed during the years. I hate the remix to tell you the truth.

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 7:04pm

this thread is awesome.

it gets to me though that loads of people have echoed what i said by using the terms 'music for hairdressers/horrible gays/etc.' but because i came straight out and say it in more literal language and without demeaning any profession (poor hairdressers get a hard time), I end up getting slated for it.

Also, a few people here could do with realising that developing a cultured taste isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Executive Steve · 02-12-2008 7:07pm

jtsuited wrote: »

this thread is awesome.

it gets to me though that loads of people have echoed what i said by using the terms 'music for hairdressers/horrible gays/etc.' but because i came straight out and say it in more literal language and without demeaning any profession (poor hairdressers get a hard time), I end up getting slated for it.

Also, a few people here could do with realising that developing a cultured taste isn't necessarily a bad thing.

in fairness, the nearest most people around here ever get to "culture" is in their yoghurt...

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 7:08pm

[cm]tyranny wrote: »

in fairness, the nearest most people around here ever get to "culture" is in their yoghurt...

jaysus thank god you said that and not me!

Scubadevils · 02-12-2008 7:11pm

jtsuited wrote: »

argh here we go again. ok to clarify, and to wind up a few people too, imo it is intellectually devoid. As in it does not appeal to the intellect whatsoever. And in fact I find it insulting to my intellect as an an artform.

Yeah it's an intellectually snobby view to have, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't an intellectual snob.

At least I'm being honest about it though.

oh and what i'm saying is pretty much like saying it's hairdresser music. just i'm using more concrete terms.

Sheesh... I opened a big feck-off can of worms there!

Why do some people like blue and others red? Why one scent of aftershave over another? Some like garlic and others don't? The list goes on...

Why does one persons brain and sense of hearing react differently to various sounds and music? More complex probably than a choice of one colour or one food over another but essentially down to human preferences.

It doesn't make any of these preferences better than the other, simply down to an individuals choice and personal preference.

It is an interesting subject and one which led me to this book - I have yet to order it but this thread reminds me that I should...

http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0452288525/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228239981&sr=8-1

I think our sense of hearing does mature with age and we ultimately end up liking music we may not have when we were younger - this is probably made up of life's experiences, new sounds and memories lodged in our heads that can be provoked or remembered from a simple stroke of a piano key, guitar riff or drum pattern... whatever, but the point is we probably absorb more sound as we move through life and end up appreciating more as a result. This doesn't suggest for a minute that one genre or style is better than another or equally more intellectually stimulating, simply that various styles will not appeal to everyones sense of hearing.

Plus maturity probably calms us down somewhat, most of what I listen to these days is much more home-listening than dancefloor, but still of the electronic variety.

Anyway, all IMO! :pac: And funky house is still sh*te.

Scubadevils · 02-12-2008 7:17pm

jtsuited wrote: »

this thread is awesome.

it gets to me though that loads of people have echoed what i said by using the terms 'music for hairdressers/horrible gays/etc.' but because i came straight out and say it in more literal language and without demeaning any profession (poor hairdressers get a hard time), I end up getting slated for it.

Also, a few people here could do with realising that developing a cultured taste isn't necessarily a bad thing.

LOL, not directed at you as such but I forgot to LOL at whoever said 'music for hairdressers and horrible gays' in the first place!

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 7:21pm

Felixdhc wrote: »

Sheesh... I opened a big feck-off can of worms there!

Why do some people like blue and others red? Why one scent of aftershave over another? Some like garlic and others don't? The list goes on...

Why does one persons brain and sense of hearing react differently to various sounds and music? More complex probably than a choice of one colour or one food over another but essentially down to human preferences.

It doesn't make any of these preferences better than the other, simply down to an individuals choice and personal preference.

It is an interesting subject and one which led me to this book - I have yet to order it but this thread reminds me that I should...

http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0452288525/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228239981&sr=8-1

I think our sense of hearing does mature with age and we ultimately end up liking music we may not have when we were younger - this is probably made up of life's experiences, new sounds and memories lodged in our heads that can be provoked or remembered from a simple stroke of a piano key, guitar riff or drum pattern... whatever, but the point is we probably absorb more sound as we move through life and end up appreciating more as a result. This doesn't suggest for a minute that one genre or style is better than another or equally more intellectually stimulating, simply that various styles will not appeal to everyones sense of hearing.

Plus maturity probably calms us down somewhat, most of what I listen to these days is much more home-listening than dancefloor, but still of the electronic variety.

Anyway, all IMO! :pac: And funky house is still sh*te.

lol.
can of worms indeed.
and i disagree with a lot of the above. your ears become educated as you grow. there is a measurable quality to musicality within the brain. it's not 'just a matter of opinion'. there are more complex appreciations than others. but it's a debate for a different day and probably an entirely different forum.

Scubadevils · 02-12-2008 7:27pm

jtsuited wrote: »

lol.
can of worms indeed.
and i disagree with a lot of the above. your ears become educated as you grow. there is a measurable quality to musicality within the brain. it's not 'just a matter of opinion'. there are more complex appreciations than others. but it's a debate for a different day and probably an entirely different forum.

Why not discuss here, or equally a new thread to discuss? Or point me towards the forum where it should be! Genuinely interested in the subject, given that music is by far the most important thing in my life (after wife and kids of course!)

I didn't say 'matter of opinion' either, I said preference/choice... very different.

I wouldn't disagree at all with your comment about ears becoming educated as you grow, but that goes hand in hand with how your brain reacts as it grows, your ears are a channel to your brain after all!

So do you feel that say your choice of music over mine for example, equates to a more 'intelligent' choice, or one that is more intellectually stimulating?

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 7:38pm

Felixdhc wrote: »

Why not discuss here, or equally a new thread to discuss? Or point me towards the forum where it should be! Genuinely interested in the subject, given that music is by far the most important thing in my life (after wife and kids of course!)

I didn't say 'matter of opinion' either, I said preference/choice... very different.

I wouldn't disagree at all with your comment about ears becoming educated as you grow, but that goes hand in hand with how your brain reacts as it grows, your ears are a channel to your brain after all!

So do you feel that say your choice of music over mine for example, equates to a more 'intelligent' choice, or one that is more intellectually stimulating?

i have no idea as i don't know you. if i was to tell you the answer that question though i would do some relatively simple tests.

A pitch differentiation test. A timbre differentiation test, and an SPL differentiation test.

After establishing that you have 'musical' ears, then it would be merely a case of examining how many different types of music you can understand. As in, point out the defining characteristics of a genre in musical terms. Not using big fancy words like polyphony, polyrhythm, counterpoint, syncopation, etc but getting you to sing or play certain bits of music common to a genre.
I could say what's the link between these two different pieces of music. and you'd say the bassline uses the same timbre, structure, etc.

these are all empirically measurable things and have nothing to do with subjectivity.

for example, some people have perfect pitch. this means they can tell what note is playing without any reference to a different note. a very small percentage of people have it.
on the opposite end of the spectrum, far more people are completely arhytmical and tone-deaf. As in they cannot make a discernible difference between pitches and cannot hear the beat in a piece of music. look at any dancefloor and you will see at least a few people dancing completely out of time with the music. these people are arhythmical. I have tried teaching drums to one person who is both tone deaf, and arhythmic and it is genuinely impossible.

Scubadevils · 02-12-2008 7:41pm

jtsuited wrote: »

i have no idea as i don't know you. if i was to tell you the answer that question though i would do some relatively simple tests.

A pitch differentiation test. A timbre differentiation test, and an SPL differentiation test.

After establishing that you have 'musical' ears, then it would be merely a case of examining how many different types of music you can understand. As in, point out the defining characteristics of a genre in musical terms. Not using big fancy words like polyphony, polyrhythm, counterpoint, syncopation, etc but getting you to sing or play certain bits of music common to a genre.
I could say what's the link between these two different pieces of music. and you'd say the bassline uses the same timbre, structure, etc.

these are all empirically measurable things and have nothing to do with subjectivity.

So basically, if you were to place a number of people in a room, and test their musical ability by way of the methods mentioned above, you could then determine how 'intelligent' their musical preference is?

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 7:45pm

Felixdhc wrote: »

So basically, if you were to place a number of people in a room, and test their musical ability by way of the methods mentioned above, you could then determine how 'intelligent' their musical preference is?

well their musical aptitude would be reflected in their tastes, just as someone with a great aptitude in civil engineering would have tastes in say bridges related to that aptitude.

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 7:49pm

Felixdhc wrote: »

So basically, if you were to place a number of people in a room, and test their musical ability by way of the methods mentioned above, you could then determine how 'intelligent' their musical preference is?

em, to an extent yes. the higher the musical IQ the greater chance that their musical tastes would be more complex, with more refined nuances. obviously they're going to more easily spot cliche, predictability, infantility and other characteristics also.

and then we get into the subjective stuff.

Scubadevils · 02-12-2008 7:49pm

jtsuited wrote: »

well their musical aptitude would be reflected in their tastes, just as someone with a great aptitude in civil engineering would have tastes in say bridges related to that aptitude.

So do you feel then that musical choice and preference is determined by musical aptitude? And if so, how would you relate this to other genres? Take say classical music, jazz, rock etc.

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 8:01pm

Felixdhc wrote: »

So do you feel then that musical choice and preference is determined by musical aptitude? And if so, how would you relate this to other genres? Take say classical music, jazz, rock etc.

in my opinion it is defined hugely by musical aptitude. and musical aptitude in general is highly related to a more general aptitude (although i have come across people who are exceptions to this).

there is a reason that the average musician's IQ is higher than the average non-musician.

ok as far as classical music goes here's my thoughts. classical music (well what we think of as classical music) was (and still is to an extent) music to cater for an audience of the intellectual elite. obviously there was classical music that wasn't like that, but a huge amount of it is.

One of the key characteristics of jazz was that it was often an intellectual endeavour sometimes to the detriment of the mass aesthetic appeal of it. in other words, your average joe on the street is not really going to 'get' a lot of jazz. but the virtuoso jazz musicians whose technical ability was astounding loved all the crazy complicated stuff that regularly broke conventions in structure etc.
i studied jazz for a good while, and much of it is completely unlistenable to a non-musician. in fact if you're not playing it, it's a bloody headache indeed.:D

rock music. same again, some of it is not that bright, some of it is.
i mean we all know the difference between pink floyd and say avril lavigne.

dance music, the same goes for.

Fintomiginto · 02-12-2008 8:30pm

So basically what your saying Jt is that minimal music is far superior than normal house or funky house because it is not as popular as the aforementioned. I understand your theory but I know a good few people who disprove your theory. I know people whom I wouldnt consider the brightest people to be into minimal purely because its the "in" thing. These people haven't a bloody clue when it comes to music IMO.

Also I have a very good job and would consider myself intelligent and I have no interest whatsoever in minimal. My friends would be in the same boat as me.

Also to apply the theory you have mentioned to this debate is a bit silly as it has no baring on anything we are discussing here. Just because you have the stereotypical opinion that all people whom like house or "funky house" are intellectually challenged you decide use a theory as a way of proving your point. You have decided to place minimal or whatever you are into on a parrallel with classical music or music of the elite as you put it just to prove that whatever genre you are into is enjoyed by people whom are not intellectually challenged.

Your a crazy ****er with too much time on your hands mate.

Scubadevils · 02-12-2008 8:36pm

jtsuited wrote: »

in my opinion it is defined hugely by musical aptitude. and musical aptitude in general is highly related to a more general aptitude (although i have come across people who are exceptions to this).

there is a reason that the average musician's IQ is higher than the average non-musician.

ok as far as classical music goes here's my thoughts. classical music (well what we think of as classical music) was (and still is to an extent) music to cater for an audience of the intellectual elite. obviously there was classical music that wasn't like that, but a huge amount of it is.

One of the key characteristics of jazz was that it was often an intellectual endeavour sometimes to the detriment of the mass aesthetic appeal of it. in other words, your average joe on the street is not really going to 'get' a lot of jazz. but the virtuoso jazz musicians whose technical ability was astounding loved all the crazy complicated stuff that regularly broke conventions in structure etc.
i studied jazz for a good while, and much of it is completely unlistenable to a non-musician. in fact if you're not playing it, it's a bloody headache indeed.:D

rock music. same again, some of it is not that bright, some of it is.
i mean we all know the difference between pink floyd and say avril lavigne.

dance music, the same goes for.

An interesting perspective and makes sense - if I think of people I know and the music they like, it does actually correspond in many ways to them both as individuals and also intellectually I guess. So I do now see where you are coming from - but I still hold the IDM grudge regardless!!! :pac:

Zascar · 02-12-2008 8:38pm

Fintomiginto wrote: »

So basically what your saying Jt is that minimal music is far superior than normal house or funky house because it is not as popular as the aforementioned. I understand your theory but I know a good few people who disprove your theory. I know people whom I wouldnt consider the brightest people to be into minimal purely because its the "in" thing. These people haven't a bloody clue when it comes to music IMO.

Also I have a very good job and would consider myself intelligent and I have no interest whatsoever in minimal. My friends would be in the same boat as me.

Also to apply the theory you have mentioned to this debate is a bit silly as it has no baring on anything we are discussing here. Just because you have the stereotypical opinion that all people whom like house or "funky house" are intellectually challenged you decide use a theory as a way of proving your point. You have decided to place minimal or whatever you are into on a parrallel with classical music or music of the elite as you put it just to prove that whatever genre you are into is enjoyed by people whom are not intellectually challenged.

Your a crazy ****er with too much time on your hands mate.

Hahahaha ok I was not going to put it that strongly, but the boy has a point. So, to me at least, there is a clear different between the people who are into good minimal/techno and those who worship Tiesto as God of all music. However I don't think that just people like a less synthetic brand of house, that it puts them at a lower statue musically.

Scubadevils · 02-12-2008 8:42pm

Fintomiginto wrote: »

So basically what your saying Jt is that minimal music is far superior than normal house or funky house because it is not as popular as the aforementioned. I understand your theory but I know a good few people who disprove your theory. I know people whom I wouldnt consider the brightest people to be into minimal purely because its the "in" thing. These people haven't a bloody clue when it comes to music IMO.

Also I have a very good job and would consider myself intelligent and I have no interest whatsoever in minimal. My friends would be in the same boat as me.

Also to apply the theory you have mentioned to this debate is a bit silly as it has no baring on anything we are discussing here. Just because you have the stereotypical opinion that all people whom like house or "funky house" are intellectually challenged you decide use a theory as a way of proving your point. You have decided to place minimal or whatever you are into on a parrallel with classical music or music of the elite as you put it just to prove that whatever genre you are into is enjoyed by people whom are not intellectually challenged.

Your a crazy ****er with too much time on your hands mate.

Good points too, ah I'm on the fence now!

Fck it, each to their own...

BaZmO* · 02-12-2008 8:44pm

Fintomiginto wrote: »

Your a crazy ****er with too much time on your hands mate.

seannash · 02-12-2008 8:50pm

Fintomiginto wrote: »

Your a crazy ****er with too much time on your hands mate.

you might think that but you cant deny the points he made arent somewhat valid.
and to be fair he did say in my opinion.
as for your mates who are into minimal because its the in thing,thats just ridiculous.they would have to like the music in order for them to be into it.they might be giving it a bit more attention than they have previous due to it being more popular than ever but to say its just coz its cool is a bit silly imo
unless of course they came out and said that they only like it because its the in thing,if they did then you should stop hanging round with them

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 8:58pm

Fintomiginto wrote: »

So basically what your saying Jt is that minimal music is far superior than normal house or funky house because it is not as popular as the aforementioned. I understand your theory but I know a good few people who disprove your theory. I know people whom I wouldnt consider the brightest people to be into minimal purely because its the "in" thing. These people haven't a bloody clue when it comes to music IMO.

Also I have a very good job and would consider myself intelligent and I have no interest whatsoever in minimal. My friends would be in the same boat as me.

Also to apply the theory you have mentioned to this debate is a bit silly as it has no baring on anything we are discussing here. Just because you have the stereotypical opinion that all people whom like house or "funky house" are intellectually challenged you decide use a theory as a way of proving your point. You have decided to place minimal or whatever you are into on a parrallel with classical music or music of the elite as you put it just to prove that whatever genre you are into is enjoyed by people whom are not intellectually challenged.

Your a crazy ****er with too much time on your hands mate.

1. woah woah woah. Nowhere did i mention minimal at all. We were talking about funky house and i said it was intellectually devoid

2. secondly i said it's a topic for a different debate/forum.

3. it's not my theory at all. i suggest you learn something about musicology before you dismiss the points I've made as 'a theory I made up'.

4. while you might have a well paid job, and consider yourself intelligent, the fact that you have put words into my mouth and confused what I was saying so clearly, suggests something different that an intellectual heavyweight.

5. I have too much time on my hands? I've been a professional musician (in one guise or another)/producer for most of my adult life. So actually knowing something about music (in all it's forms) sort of comes with the territory.

jonny68 · 02-12-2008 9:05pm

Wot in the name of jaysus has "intelligence" got to do with dance music:rolleyes:whoever invented the term IDM needs shooting, this isn't a fcuking university or school we're talking about here it's music and is there to be enjoyed, it's not about "how intelligent people think it is"

Jesus wept:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

jonny68 · 02-12-2008 9:09pm

seannash wrote: »

you might think that but you cant deny the points he made arent somewhat valid.
and to be fair he did say in my opinion.
as for your mates who are into minimal because its the in thing,thats just ridiculous.they would have to like the music in order for them to be into it.they might be giving it a bit more attention than they have previous due to it being more popular than ever but to say its just coz its cool is a bit silly imo
unless of course they came out and said that they only like it because its the in thing,if they did then you should stop hanging round with them

sometimes one cant help wonder if seannash and jsuited are actually the same person with 2 different accounts, always seem to agree and big each other up.:D

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 9:11pm

jonny68 wrote: »

Wot in the name of jaysus has "intelligence" got to do with dance music:rolleyes:whoever invented the term IDM needs shooting, this isn't a fcuking university or school :

sounds like the type of thing you'd hear in hairdresser college tbh.
what has intelligence got to do with dance music?
the same thing that intelligence has to with music.

a lot.

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 9:11pm

jonny68 wrote: »

sometimes one cant help wonder if seannash and jsuited are actually the same person with 2 different accounts, always seem to agree and big each other up.:D

you going to actually make any useful points about your hairdresser music then?

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 9:15pm

jonny68 wrote: »

sometimes one cant help wonder if seannash and jsuited are actually the same person with 2 different accounts, always seem to agree and big each other up.:D

could have something to do with the fact that we're both producers (who have releases out), and both dj (in public).

that or the fact that we don't tend to pay heed to people who's only credential was being born before 1975.

jonny68 · 02-12-2008 9:16pm

jtsuited wrote: »

you going to actually make any useful points about your hairdresser music then?

hairdresser music:D

Minimal = Ketamine music:p

seriously though i cant take you or anyone else seriously when they refer to funky house as hairdresser music:rolleyes:

jonny68 · 02-12-2008 9:17pm

jtsuited wrote: »

could have something to do with the fact that we're both producers (who have releases out), and both dj (in public).

that or the fact that we don't tend to pay heed to people who's only credential was being born before 1975.

:rolleyes:

jonny68 · 02-12-2008 9:19pm

jtsuited wrote: »

sounds like the type of thing you'd hear in hairdresser college tbh.
what has intelligence got to do with dance music?
the same thing that intelligence has to with music.

a lot.

you wont like this album then:P

http://www.discogs.com/release/168270

IDM Jesus wept

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 9:20pm

jonny68 wrote: »

hairdresser music:D

Minimal = Ketamine music:p

seriously though i cant take you or anyone else seriously when they refer to funky house as hairdresser music:rolleyes:

jaysus there's a lot of people you're not going to be taking seriously then. and your retort of minimal=ketamine music is completely off topic as when people refer to it as hairdresser music they mean it's for the simple and uneducated (which is a little unfair on hairdressers though).

Not surprisingly, this went over your head.

seannash · 02-12-2008 9:20pm

jonny68 wrote: »

sometimes one cant help wonder if seannash and jsuited are actually the same person with 2 different accounts, always seem to agree and big each other up.:D

eh so did felix agree and im sure a few more to boot.
but yea we definitely agree on most topics you post about johnny.we agree that your living in the past,we agree that you think your opinion is of more value than others because of your age.we agree that you harp on and on and on about oldschool and the tracks you post youtube links to and claim are classics that still sound fresh are stale old tracks that sound like ****.
in fact i think most people agree with us on those topics,guess jtsuited is very busy and has 50 accounts for all those people who dont share the same point of view as johnny68.
that must be the reason right johnny.
it couldnt be that your wrong about these things.
oh i forgot your a connoiseur:rolleyes::rolleyes:

:D
do you want me to go on

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 9:20pm

jonny68 wrote: »

you wont like this album then:P

http://www.discogs.com/release/168270

IDM Jesus wept

johnny I never mentioned IDM. I hate that term actually. Again I don't think you fully grasp what is being said here.

jonny68 · 02-12-2008 9:22pm

seannash wrote: »

eh so did felix agree and im sure a few more to boot.
but yea we definitely agree on most topics you post about johnny.we agree that your living in the past,we agree that you think your opinion is of more value than others because of your age.we agree that you harp on and on and on about oldschool and the tracks you post youtube links to and claim are classics that still sound fresh are stale old tracks that sound like ****.
in fact i think most people agree with us on those topics,guess jtsuited is very busy and has 50 accounts for all those people who dont share the same point of view as johnny68.
that must be the reason right johnny.
it couldnt be that your wrong about these things.
oh i forgot your a connoiseur:rolleyes::rolleyes:
:D
do you want me to go on

you love to try and make out i am forever harping on about old skool but your only making a fool of yourself saying that as it's completely false and you know that!!!!

I'll leave you kids to argue amongst yourselves about what you term "hairdresser music" bye:D

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

jtsuited · 02-12-2008 9:26pm

jonny68 wrote: »

you love to try and make out i am forever harping on about old skool but your only making a fool of yourself saying that as it's completely false and you know that!!!!

I'll leave you kids to argue amongst yourselves about what you term "hairdresser music" bye:D

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

fail.

i think you'll find he's not making a fool of himself especially if you
a) look at your sig
b) click on the read more posts by jonny68
c) have any sort of self-awareness

seannash · 02-12-2008 9:34pm

jonny68 wrote: »

you love to try and make out i am forever harping on about old skool but your only making a fool of yourself saying that as it's completely false and you know that!!!!

I'll leave you kids to argue amongst yourselves about what you term "hairdresser music" bye:D

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

read the thread johnny,i defended funky house music,i didnt call it hairdresser music.
i dont feel like going back and highlighting all th oldschool posts youve made.i think people know that thats your thing so i dont feel the need to defend that statement
tell the truth now your leaving this conversation because you havent got anything to cntribute that we havent heard before.
and you seem to be okay with equating minimal to ketamine but we cant associate funky house with hairdressers.hmmmm bit biased that view no johnny.
but again im no connoiseur,or pushing 40 so what do i know right:D:D

Fintomiginto · 02-12-2008 9:38pm

jtsuited wrote: »

1. woah woah woah. Nowhere did i mention minimal at all. We were talking about funky house and i said it was intellectually devoid

2. secondly i said it's a topic for a different debate/forum.

3. it's not my theory at all. i suggest you learn something about musicology before you dismiss the points I've made as 'a theory I made up'.

4. while you might have a well paid job, and consider yourself intelligent, the fact that you have put words into my mouth and confused what I was saying so clearly, suggests something different that an intellectual heavyweight.

5. I have too much time on my hands? I've been a professional musician (in one guise or another)/producer for most of my adult life. So actually knowing something about music (in all it's forms) sort of comes with the territory.

1. First of all I used the example of minimal as a genre because it was developed more recently than "Funky House".

2. Secondly we all have to listen to your "intellectual" ramblings and not reply, so I should have totally disregarded what you said in previous posts just because you said it was for another debate/forum?

3. I never suggested it was a theory "you made up". (By the way jt I think you come across as very arrogant. "Learn something about Musicology")
Why cant you just have an opinion without telling everybody how musically advanced or musically educated you are. You just dismiss everybodys opinions. I actually have a whole lot of respect for you in the way your an Irish artist doing well for yourself. That can only be applauded. But a bit of humility goes a long way.

4. Where did I put words in your mouth?

5. Once again dismissive arrogance. You obviously have a good musical background. But you seem to be very rigid in your opinions and very closed minded, is that because you were educated more than us and your opinion carries more weight because of this?

seannash · 02-12-2008 9:45pm

jonny68 wrote: »

you love to try and make out i am forever harping on about old skool but your only making a fool of yourself saying that as it's completely false and you know that!!!!

I'll leave you kids to argue amongst yourselves about what you term "hairdresser music" bye:D

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

i have to laugh,because as soon as you posted this you ran over to the assylum/oldschool thread ha ha ha ha

jonny68 · 02-12-2008 9:48pm

seannash wrote: »

i have to laugh,because as soon as you posted this you ran over to the assylum/oldschool thread ha ha ha ha

seriously seannash what age are you?Catch yourself on there lad.

You come across as someone who has the collective mentality of a teenager, this post says it all..... :eek:

Scubadevils · 02-12-2008 9:52pm

Jazsus I wonder if I can be ars*d logging in here anymore.

seannash · 02-12-2008 9:57pm

jonny68 wrote: »

seriously seannash what age are you?Catch yourself on there lad.

You come across as someone who has the collective mentality of a teenager, this post says it all..... :eek:

26 johnny.
and i dont think i come across like that but thats your opinion and your entitled to it.
i wont tell you what you come across as,think most people on here have you pegged in that regard.:D
but you did make your next post in that thread,just thought it was a funny coincidence that you say you dont post about oldschool but then proceed to go to an oldschool thread to post.
can you see the funny side in that johnny?
like in a way you kind of have proven my point about you posting about oldschool through your own actions immediately after that post.
kinda made me chuckle a bit:D:D

Do you like funky house?

Comments