Do you like funky house?

jtsuited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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*

Fintomiginto wrote: »

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

seannash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

seannash

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