Life is not a dance-floor (a dance-floor is an inanimate, non living, non organism).
Love is not the rhythm (recurrence of musical beats or notes do not possess the ability to experience passionate affection for an entity or being).
You are not the music (The subjective perception of self is not best embodied, described or limited by the art-form of sound arrangement).
Therefore, it follows that God is not a DJ.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
Therefore, it follows that God is not a DJ.
Probably just as well really, as I doubt he'd make downloading his tracks any easier than hearing 'his message'.
I guess there'd be some specialist outlets around who would supply some old-school vinyl copies pertaining to be his original recordings, but you'd never be sure they weren't just adapted cover versions to suit the suppliers agenda?
Dialogist
It also toys gleefully with the supposition that God doesn't hate techno too.
I can safely conclude after about 15 years of collecting rare and unreleased dusty archived acetate bootlegs of some of the finest god-like geniuses of our musical history, that they are rare and unreleased for a reason.
spinout
it is my fully believe that God hates disco OR any other music produced after 1966!
god is absolutely not a DJ - or any mechanized music! at all....
If anyone wonders why just 1966!??? have you ever heard quality music after 1966??? Nope ,there you have it!
tingkagol
spinout wrote:
it is my fully believe that God hates disco OR any other music produced after 1966!
...
If anyone wonders why just 1966!??? have you ever heard quality music after 1966??? Nope ,there you have it!
Maybe you're not listening to enough music.
I'm also curious as to what pre-1966 records you call quality music... Care to enlighten me?
spinout
I am always listening to a lot of music!!! Pre-1967 of course!
it was then - and only then - the music existed! The rest is just tryin to copy that music! or is just influenced by it!!! As simple as that. heard of any new music??? all is already invented!
Dialogist
spinout wrote:
it is my fully believe that God hates disco OR any other music produced after 1966!
god is absolutely not a DJ - or any mechanized music! at all....
If anyone wonders why just 1966!??? have you ever heard quality music after 1966??? Nope ,there you have it!
haha, mechanized music, that's great. Let it Be came out in 1969 though.
tingkagol
spinout wrote:
I am always listening to a lot of music!!! Pre-1967 of course!
it was then - and only then - the music existed! The rest is just tryin to copy that music! or is just influenced by it!!! As simple as that. heard of any new music??? all is already invented!
It's like saying you'd rather wear the rags of cavemen from the stone age than any type of modern clothing. And if I continue to follow your logic, modern clothing apparently isn't clothing. ("it was then - and only then - the music existed!")
truespeed
Most of the best music was produced after 1966,as for God not being a DJ,with the devil allegedly having all the best tunes,maybe best to let him be MC.
watersoul
truespeed wrote:
...as for God not being a DJ,with the devil allegedly having all the best tunes,maybe best to let him be MC.
Hmm, I was thinking about this today and wondered how much fun the many raves/beach/warehouse dance parties would have been for me over the years if God had been resident on the decks - especially with all his rules etc.
I can't go back to the 90's/Noughties without a time machine so I guess I'll never know, perhaps everyone jumping around intoxicated on the holy spirit would have been a better rush?!
ocalhoun
tingkagol wrote:
spinout wrote:
it is my fully believe that God hates disco OR any other music produced after 1966!
...
If anyone wonders why just 1966!??? have you ever heard quality music after 1966??? Nope ,there you have it!
Maybe you're not listening to enough music.
I'm also curious as to what pre-1966 records you call quality music... Care to enlighten me?
Well, personally, I'd say music started its down-hill slide with the invention of radio/recording-playback devices.
(none of my favorites were made after the 1920's... and most are much older)
tingkagol
ocalhoun wrote:
tingkagol wrote:
spinout wrote:
it is my fully believe that God hates disco OR any other music produced after 1966!
...
If anyone wonders why just 1966!??? have you ever heard quality music after 1966??? Nope ,there you have it!
Maybe you're not listening to enough music.
I'm also curious as to what pre-1966 records you call quality music... Care to enlighten me?
Well, personally, I'd say music started its down-hill slide with the invention of radio/recording-playback devices.
(none of my favorites were made after the 1920's... and most are much older)
I don't get that. If not for radio and music records, everyone would have to see live performances to hear music, or, in order for them to spread their music, musicians would have to print and distribute sheet music so other people can play them to other people and so on.
All I'm saying is, if not for radio or playback devices, music would've only been enjoyed by and inspired a few, and it wouldn't have produced the rich and diverse records that we have today. Maybe you prefer geniuses like Beethoven or Mozart exclusively handle the music? Since nowadays, with the available technology, almost anybody can make a song? I do agree that more and more crappy records get released nowadays (considering my preferences), but it doesn't mean that as a result quality music has become extinct. On the contrary- quality music is very much alive and well! People just have to look harder to find it. There's almost something for everybody nowadays.
Also, and I should have mentioned this earlier, I have absolutely zero knowledge of pre-1920s music. I would love to hear music from that era, if you could point me to a few artists?
deanhills
tingkagol wrote:
I don't get that. If not for radio and music records, everyone would have to see live performances to hear music, or, in order for them to spread their music, musicians would have to print and distribute sheet music so other people can play them to other people and so on.
Agreed! I don't know how I would have passed my exams at school if I did not have music to keep motivating me. I'm certain it must inspire people who compose music as well. I'm thinking of a rap artist who inspired me on the Internet. He is very talented. Perhaps he would not have gravitated to music, if there had not been so much of the recorded rap music available at the time.
Dialogist
tingkagol wrote:
Since nowadays, with the available technology, almost anybody can make a song?
It's true for the most part. With the endless amount of samples available and technology to arrange it all one really needs to do is like music. A person need never learn a lick of a single musical instrument. But then you have DJ's who will tell you that their turntables are musical instruments and different sounds hitting each other with scratches and breaks and what not is composing, in the sense that, Beethoven was pressing keys that he knew made a particular kind of sound for him, rather than organically singing the pitch of each note sounded. So in that respect, in his day, the piano was technology, compared to that of say, the bear skin drums of prehistoric peoples, that being technology compared to the beating of one's chest of centuries before.
Technology has its benefits to me, like a person using a thesaurus to beef up their vocabulary or select a better word to aid a meaning in writing. But thankfully, we don't have technology that samples and arranges other people's books yet. Meaning to be a good author, you still need some semblance of talent.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
tingkagol wrote:
Since nowadays, with the available technology, almost anybody can make a song?
It's true for the most part. With the endless amount of samples available and technology to arrange it all one really needs to do is like music. A person need never learn a lick of a single musical instrument. But then you have DJ's who will tell you that their turntables are musical instruments and different sounds hitting each other with scratches and breaks and what not is composing, in the sense that, Beethoven was pressing keys that he knew made a particular kind of sound for him, rather than organically singing the pitch of each note sounded. So in that respect, in his day, the piano was technology, compared to that of say, the bear skin drums of prehistoric peoples, that being technology compared to the beating of one's chest of centuries before.
Technology has its benefits to me, like a person using a thesaurus to beef up their vocabulary or select a better word to aid a meaning in writing. But thankfully, we don't have technology that samples and arranges other people's books yet. Meaning to be a good author, you still need some semblance of talent.
Well said, it's almost like technology raising the bar and challenging people a little further in completely different ways. Like DJs with the turntables. Although that does sound quite screetchy to me but to them it may sound like grand new music.
spinout
I Do mostly wear 50s style clothes - or similar pre-1967 clothes.
Do I intend to have a house in old fashion style - intend yes... but actually it is 70s style - ie supermodern!!!
Dialogist
Quote:
Although that does sound quite screetchy to me but to them it may sound like grand new music.
I detest it, but I just see their point. Like if you look at Sgt Peppers by The Beatles and Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys, you have two of the most important albums of all time that revolutionized the way music was made forever. They use traditional instruments but are also largely electronic albums full of sampling.
By the way, I do realize that "prehistoric people" is an oxymoron. [/quote]
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
Quote:
Although that does sound quite screetchy to me but to them it may sound like grand new music.
I detest it, but I just see their point. Like if you look at Sgt Peppers by The Beatles and Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys, you have two of the most important albums of all time that revolutionized the way music was made forever. They use traditional instruments but are also largely electronic albums full of sampling.
By the way, I do realize that "prehistoric people" is an oxymoron.
I'm unfamiliar with Pet Sounds and The Beach Boys, but The Beatles Sgt Peppers I agree did a lot to change the way music was made.
ocalhoun
tingkagol wrote:
Also, and I should have mentioned this earlier, I have absolutely zero knowledge of pre-1920s music. I would love to hear music from that era, if you could point me to a few artists?
The latest ones that I've really enjoyed are Gershwin and Prokofiev*, though most of what I listen to is older. Vivaldi does some very good work with string quartets, while I enjoy organ work by Bach.
But, I'm not as knowledgeable about it as I'd like... I often find a composition I enjoy, but am unable to find out who made it.
* ('rhapsody in blue' and 'dance of the knights' in particular, respectively)
Yes, I'm aware that some of this was post-1920; the decline of music started then, but the decline was not instantaneous.
tingkagol wrote:
Quote:
(none of my favorites were made after the 1920's... and most are much older)
I don't get that. If not for radio and music records, everyone would have to see live performances to hear music, or, in order for them to spread their music, musicians would have to print and distribute sheet music so other people can play them to other people and so on.
It's easier to get the music now, certainly... But I think the ability to distribute recorded music has put more emphasis on the performance and less on the composition, to the detriment of the general quality of music available.
truespeed
deanhills wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with Pet Sounds and The Beach Boys,
You must of heard this.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with Pet Sounds and The Beach Boys,
You must of heard this.
I don't think I have. I must have missed out on this one.
catscratches
ocalhoun wrote:
It's easier to get the music now, certainly... But I think the ability to distribute recorded music has put more emphasis on the performance and less on the composition, to the detriment of the general quality of music available.
I'd say the opposite. With electronic music, the performance is pretty much out of the equation altogether to the point where only composition remains. And on the other side of the spectrum we have eg. certain improv. free jazz artists where performance is everything.
ocalhoun
catscratches wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
It's easier to get the music now, certainly... But I think the ability to distribute recorded music has put more emphasis on the performance and less on the composition, to the detriment of the general quality of music available.
I'd say the opposite. With electronic music, the performance is pretty much out of the equation altogether to the point where only composition remains. And on the other side of the spectrum we have eg. certain improv. free jazz artists where performance is everything.
Not the performance of the CD player replaying the music... I meant the performance of the performers being recorded.
Instead of listening to great music being performed in a mediocre way, we listen to mediocre music performed in a great way.
...The problem is, no matter how good the (recorded) performance is, a great performance of mediocre music can never compare to the (rare) great performance of great music.
spinout
Hm, what year was PET SOUNDS??? That record is unbeaten - and God only knows is one of the worst songs on that album!
Some people had yesterday as a memorial for the day the music died - remember the plane crash with buddy Holly??? I have a friend that always were funeral clothings on that day!
spinout
1966 it was released - yep my pre 1967 theory is working!!!!
spinout
I saw an interview where Brian Wilson told that the song Caroline No was made under the influence of marijuana
Dialogist
spinout wrote:
1966 it was released - yep my pre 1967 theory is working!!!!
Rolling Stones - Beggars Banquet (1969)
Rolling Stones - Exile on Main St (1972)
Bob Dylan - John Wesley Harding (1967)
Bob Dylan - Nashville Skyline (1969)
Bob Dylan - Blood on the Tracks (1975)
Bob Dylan - Desire (1976)
Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced (1967)
Jimi Hendrix - Electric Ladyland (1968)
The Kinks - The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society (1968)
The Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
The Beatles - The Beatles (aka the White Album) (1968)
The Beatles - Yellow Submarine (1969)
The Beatles - Abbey Road (1969)
The Beatles - Let It Be (1970)
Neil Young - After The Goldrush (1970)
James Taylor - Sweet Baby James (1970)
Jim Croce - You Don't Mess Around With Jim (1972)
Simon And Garfunkle - Bookends (1968)
Simon And Garfunkle - Bridge over Troubled Water (1970)
The Velvet Underground - The Velvet Underground & Nico (1967)
The Velvet Underground - White Light/White Heat (1968)
The Velvet Underground - The Velvet Underground (1969)
The Velvet Underground - Loaded (1970)
The Beach Boys - Wild Honey (1967
The Byrds - Ballad of Easy Rider (1969)
John Lennon - John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (1970)
John Lennon - Imagine (1971)
John Lennon - Mind Games (1973)
John Lennon - Walls and Bridges (1974)
John Lennon - Double Fantasy (1980)
John Lennon - Milk and Honey (1984)
Johnny Cash - Hello, I'm Johnny Cash (1970)
Johnny Cash - Man in Black (1971)
T. Rex - T. Rex (1970)
T. Rex - Electric Warrior (1971)
David Bowie - David Bowie (1967)
David Bowie - The Man Who Sold The World (1970)
David Bowie - Heroes (1977)
Leonard Cohen - Songs of Leonard Cohen (1967)
Leonard Cohen - Songs from a Room (1969)
Leonard Cohen - Songs of Love and Hate (1971)
Carole King - Tapestry (1971)
I mean the list is by no means exhaustive and stays pretty much in the 60s/70s era which I believe music stayed alive well in, if I was to present a case for it dying in the 80s with electronic pop music, I'd still have to ignore psychedelia, punk, grunge, hip hop and anomalies to the general norm like The Smiths, The Pixies, New Order, Joy Division, The Stone Roses etc carry on to 90's Brit pop which makes it sort of redundant to do.
By the way, the originator of this "The Day The Music Died" philosophy, Don McClean who wrote that single American Pie about his theory that music died in 1959 (with Buddy Holly) unfortunately, is all about the people Buddy Holly later influenced and how awesome they were sort of awkwardly contradicting himself. There's only one other problem with this. McClean released this album in 1971 and it itself was awesome too. You can add it to the above list if you like.
If you'd like one for the 80s/90s/2010s I can provide one, although I admit, it gets considerably less credible (respectively).
the guy giving out flyers to encourage people to listen to the DJ.
Dialogist
Ah, Yahoo! Answers. On the quest for knowledge, accept no substitute.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
Ah, Yahoo! Answers. On the quest for knowledge, accept no substitute.
Oh, whatever, I was looking for something mildly funny, and at least a little bit closer to discussing that concept of God being a DJ - this is pretty much a music topic now so if you think Phil & Rel is the best place for it to be I'll leave you to it and discuss music elsewhere
Dialogist
watersoul wrote:
Oh, whatever, I was looking for something mildly funny, and at least a little bit closer to discussing that concept of God being a DJ - this is pretty much a music topic now so if you think Phil & Rel is the best place for it to be I'll leave you to it and discuss music elsewhere Wink
I thought we'd already came to a suitable consensus on the philosophy about whether a religious deity is a DJ or not and we had then moved on to other areas of philosophy such as whether Don Mclean was correct to assert with "The day that music died" that music itself could have a life-source that could be granted, possibly by means of chemical chance, and then desist whereby suggestions of Origin of said Species, afterlife and whether rock n roll being the devil's music is present in heaven or hell or not, may be applicable. And also the interesting question that Prof. Brian Wilson raised, "Would God actually know where I would be with you?" and indeed, exactly "How?" is babby formed? So thanks for your input but I don't remember Jesus handing out any leaflets.
watersoul
Dialogist wrote:
watersoul wrote:
Oh, whatever, I was looking for something mildly funny, and at least a little bit closer to discussing that concept of God being a DJ - this is pretty much a music topic now so if you think Phil & Rel is the best place for it to be I'll leave you to it and discuss music elsewhere Wink
I thought we'd already came to a suitable consensus on the philosophy about whether a religious deity is a DJ or not and we had then moved on to other areas of philosophy such as whether Don Mclean was correct to assert with "The day that music died" that music itself could have a life-source that could be granted, possibly by means of chemical chance, and then desist whereby suggestions of Origin of said Species, afterlife and whether rock n roll being the devil's music is present in heaven or hell or not, may be applicable. And also the interesting question that Prof. Brian Wilson raised, "Would God actually know where I would be with you?" and indeed, exactly "How?" is babby formed? So thanks for your input but I don't remember Jesus handing out any leaflets.
Sorry I must have missed the now obvious depth of the discussion somewhere.
Dialogist
haha, nah you're right. The mods can bin it if they want. I don't think it's going to win me a nobel prize anyway.
spinout
Wild honey - the beach Boys 1967... ok I presume Good vibrations was on that... well it was recorded before 67! And wild honey well never got to the standard actually to be inventive.
The rest of the list is not inventive enough to call addition to music.
captainsuperdude
It's a good metaphor to explain the omnipotence while at the same time admitting the existence of evil in the world.
See, the vinyl is like planet earth, both good and evil are in the grooves, so how does god lead the true believers to his kingdom? By scratching and messing with equalizers!
Obviously it's not exactly an orthodox explanation, but it reaches people well.
Life is not a dance-floor (a dance-floor is an inanimate, non living, non organism).
Love is not the rhythm (recurrence of musical beats or notes do not possess the ability to experience passionate affection for an entity or being).
You are not the music (The subjective perception of self is not best embodied, described or limited by the art-form of sound arrangement).
Therefore, it follows that God is not a DJ.
seems quite reasonable for me
I think he is more of a (real) musician, who creates "music" and not just "plays recorded music" (cite from wikipedia)
[/quote]
