Ormion Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 And btw. Taste has nothing to do with our opinions about what is revolutionary or not. Here is an example: I never really liked Shpongle, I like them in a normal amount and only specific tracks. But that doesn't change the fact that Are You Shpongled? is revolutionary and I agree with that 100%. I can't deny it, why? Because it was the first of its kind. Classical Mushroom was revolutionary. Taste has nothing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhale Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Can you explain how Classical Mushroom was revolutionary? I was just listening to it again and it seems pretty generic and boring to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormion Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 Can you explain how Classical Mushroom was revolutionary? I was just listening to it again and it seems pretty generic and boring to me. Ok, if Classical Mushroom is generic for you then I quit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhale Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Did you consider that maybe we are right, and you just haven't heard enough of the earlier goa-psy releases from 1997-1999 to realize that it's not revolutionary? You can't really say for sure something is revolutionary unless you have large exposure to the music that came before it. Yea I consider Classical Mushroom boring and I don't think the little "classical" parts they added -- even if they were the first group to ever do that, which they weren't -- are creative or revolutionary at all. Mixing between genres takes NO creativity... creating something beyond the known genres is what takes creativity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oopie Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Did you consider that maybe we are right, and you just haven't heard enough of the earlier goa-psy releases from 1997-1999 to realize that it's not revolutionary? You can't really say for sure something is revolutionary unless you have large exposure to the music that came before it. Yea I consider Classical Mushroom boring and I don't think the little "classical" parts they added -- even if they were the first group to ever do that, which they weren't -- are creative or revolutionary at all. Mixing between genres takes NO creativity... creating something beyond the known genres is what takes creativity.You seem to fail to grasp the idea this is not a right/wrong discussion in the first place. It's up to individual's own mind to give or not to give an album 'revolutionary/pioneer' status; a large number of people find CM to be a stand-out release and certainly amongst the classics, no need to be bitter about it just because your perception differs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reger Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 It seems that with IM its like with Hallucinogen: Some think hes genius, some think his music is plain shite. Some think IM are sonic wizards, some think they are boring. Some dont get Etnica at all, be cursed, villains! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhale Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 You seem to fail to grasp the idea this is not a right/wrong discussion in the first place. It's up to individual's own mind to give or not to give an album 'revolutionary/pioneer' status; a large number of people find CM to be a stand-out release and certainly amongst the classics, no need to be bitter about it just because your perception differs.Oh yea whenever you people are wrong you try to say it's a matter of taste or something that's relative, but it's not. Revolutionary means by definition that it's something unique from past music. So you should be able to point and say "this, that, and that are the unique elements that make this a revolutionary album". But instead you just sit there saying "I'm not telling" and "you're wrong because it's a matter of taste", so I guess you really don't know any answer. And someone already said that millions of people find it revolutionary but most of them also never heard of any previous goa-psy artists so for these people IM might as well of invented psytrance. In other words, these people believe the album is revolutionary out of ignorance. Are you one of these people, or can you back up your argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTP Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Oh yea whenever you people are wrong you try to say it's a matter of taste or something that's relative, but it's not. Revolutionary means by definition that it's something unique from past music. So you should be able to point and say "this, that, and that are the unique elements that make this a revolutionary album". But instead you just sit there saying "I'm not telling" and "you're wrong because it's a matter of taste", so I guess you really don't know any answer. And someone already said that millions of people find it revolutionary but most of them also never heard of any previous goa-psy artists so for these people IM might as well of invented psytrance. In other words, these people believe the album is revolutionary out of ignorance. Are you one of these people, or can you back up your argument?Your daily supersedence it's queit an amazement, generally speaking.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insejn Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Please explain I'd like to know. I wonder if you think using classical sounds in electronic music is super original or something. :wank:Back in 2000 it was pretty damn original. Get real! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psyvox Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Are you one of these people, or can you back up your argument? You are requesting arguments for the quality of an artist's music. But.. we are talking about *music* here. Music is a language by itself, and the abstract ideas that it transmits (most of the times) don't have an equivalent in the verbal language. It's quite fundamental for music, to be regarded as a medium for conveying abstract states and non-verbal thoughtforms. As a matter of fact, I could go as far as saying that the less you are able to convey in words what a song "is about"/transmits, the higher the quality of that music is (take Britney Spears - "this song makes me happy/this song is about love/this song makes me sad/this song is about anger/etc" - and Beethoven's music - *). What really makes Classical Mushroom a musical masterpiece cannot really be effectively depicted into words.. An attempt to do so would rather be an injustice to the music. Also -- the fact that you (and your other think-a-like friends) are requesting arguments for proving the genius of Classical Mushroom suggests that your own means of analyzing music are based on such inappropriate, limited verbal rationalizations. Which, in turn, reflects how entitled you actually are to judge Classical Mushroom "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oopie Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Oh yea whenever you people are wrong you try to say it's a matter of taste or something that's relative, but it's not. Revolutionary means by definition that it's something unique from past music. So you should be able to point and say "this, that, and that are the unique elements that make this a revolutionary album". But instead you just sit there saying "I'm not telling" and "you're wrong because it's a matter of taste", so I guess you really don't know any answer. And someone already said that millions of people find it revolutionary but most of them also never heard of any previous goa-psy artists so for these people IM might as well of invented psytrance. In other words, these people believe the album is revolutionary out of ignorance. Are you one of these people, or can you back up your argument?Seems you like to stick to your right/wrong delusion. The definition of revolutionary you gave, that we can agree on; and I.M. fills the criteria by a long shot, I'm merely one of the many with this opinion. How one perceives sound is virtually impossible to perfectly transform into words - first of all they're two different things, music and words. Secondly, yours truly is one of those people who lack the ability, or the vocabulary, to write in english about the sensation CM gives. Elysium gave a list of artists he thinks are the ones I.M. copied - I could always tell apart GNOTR track and I.M. track, or any other artist's work you compare to I.M's CM. But it's getting so personal now... the answer you're ultimately looking for is - music is always personally perceived, and the perception varies from an individual to another. What there's left to do is realize this, get little humility on your character and 'listen and let listen'. Since you asked, yes I know goa by heart, take some odd few releases here and there aside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapinho Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 You are requesting arguments for the quality of an artist's music. But.. we are talking about *music* here. Music is a language by itself, and the abstract ideas that it transmits (most of the times) don't have an equivalent in the verbal language. It's quite fundamental for music, to be regarded as a medium for conveying abstract states and non-verbal thoughtforms. As a matter of fact, I could go as far as saying that the less you are able to convey in words what a song "is about"/transmits, the higher the quality of that music is (take Britney Spears - "this song makes me happy/this song is about love/this song makes me sad/this song is about anger/etc" - and Beethoven's music - *). What really makes Classical Mushroom a musical masterpiece cannot really be effectively depicted into words.. An attempt to do so would rather be an injustice to the music. Also -- the fact that you (and your other think-a-like friends) are requesting arguments for proving the genius of Classical Mushroom suggests that your own means of analyzing music are based on such inappropriate, limited verbal rationalizations. Which, in turn, reflects how entitled you actually are to judge Classical Mushroom "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." I just wanted to say: "good post". And good quote too: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTP Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."exactly, take a look at general section, it looks like bwhale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insejn Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 You are requesting arguments for the quality of an artist's music. But.. we are talking about *music* here. Music is a language by itself, and the abstract ideas that it transmits (most of the times) don't have an equivalent in the verbal language. It's quite fundamental for music, to be regarded as a medium for conveying abstract states and non-verbal thoughtforms. As a matter of fact, I could go as far as saying that the less you are able to convey in words what a song "is about"/transmits, the higher the quality of that music is (take Britney Spears - "this song makes me happy/this song is about love/this song makes me sad/this song is about anger/etc" - and Beethoven's music - *). What really makes Classical Mushroom a musical masterpiece cannot really be effectively depicted into words.. An attempt to do so would rather be an injustice to the music. Also -- the fact that you (and your other think-a-like friends) are requesting arguments for proving the genius of Classical Mushroom suggests that your own means of analyzing music are based on such inappropriate, limited verbal rationalizations. Which, in turn, reflects how entitled you actually are to judge Classical Mushroom "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." Nice post! :clapping: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhale Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 You are requesting arguments for the quality of an artist's music. But.. we are talking about *music* here. Music is a language by itself, and the abstract ideas that it transmits (most of the times) don't have an equivalent in the verbal language. It's quite fundamental for music, to be regarded as a medium for conveying abstract states and non-verbal thoughtforms.I don't even see your point here. Music is a language? OK freely I'll grant you this if you want it... but we can discuss the quality of a language too.... As a matter of fact, I could go as far as saying that the less you are able to convey in words what a song "is about"/transmits, the higher the quality of that music is (take Britney Spears - "this song makes me happy/this song is about love/this song makes me sad/this song is about anger/etc" - and Beethoven's music - *).There may be some truth to that (I haven't decided yet) but it's still completely missing the point. If I copied Beethoven's style and wrote my own very similar symphony you still couldn't tell me what it was about, but you wouldn't call me a quality musician or say that my symphony was revolutionary, because it isn't. By definition. It's a copycat work. It may even be very nice music, but unless I've introduced some new elements, it cannot be called revolutionary because that's not what the word is defined as. What really makes Classical Mushroom a musical masterpiece cannot really be effectively depicted into words.. An attempt to do so would rather be an injustice to the music. Also -- the fact that you (and your other think-a-like friends) are requesting arguments for proving the genius of Classical Mushroom suggests that your own means of analyzing music are based on such inappropriate, limited verbal rationalizations. Which, in turn, reflects how entitled you actually are to judge Classical Mushroom "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." That's a PATHETIC excuse. I can tell you why albums that I deem masterpieces deserve the distinction and I can tell you why IM doesn't deserve it. You on the other hand seem only capable of sitting there covering your ears saying "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" You don't want to hear me or you have some mental deficiencies, but that doesn't excuse you, it only invalidates your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhale Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 But it's getting so personal now... the answer you're ultimately looking for is - music is always personally perceived, and the perception varies from an individual to another.I won't let you PUSSIES run away claiming everything is relative and personal. Throughout practical life we continually assume that all other human beings have relatively the same perceptions as the rest of us, so please let's do it for music too: let's assume that I hear the same thing coming from my speakers as you do in the same way that we assume that we both visually perceive the exact same object the same way. Debating which music is more revolutionary is like debating which famous tower is taller than the other: it's a question that has a definite answer, and only ignorance of previous musical influences gets in the way of one knowing that answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhale Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I just wanted to say: "good post". And good quote too: It's not a good quote. I am telling you this as someone who is a mathematician/logician (related to architecture), and likes dancing and music as well. (I believe I am more qualified to judge this quote than you, but if you feel differently, we can go more in depth about whether it is true or not.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffymushi Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It seems that with IM its like with Hallucinogen: Some think hes genius, some think his music is plain shite. Some think IM are sonic wizards, some think they are boring. Some dont get Etnica at all, be cursed, villains! some get Etnica but refuse to acknowledge Chrome's undisputable superiority, blasphemy & delusion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redington Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Going back to Scooter indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Matta Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Back in 2000 it was pretty damn original. Get real!Yeah, so true. It was a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visine Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Etnica (early), Hallucinogen, I.M. - they all have very identifiable sound you can instantly spot and not confuse with other artists. I agree. I'd also like to add that back in a day when it was released I absolutely loved Classical Mushroom. However, I also quickly got tired of it and for a long time really didn't have a clue why. After taking a step back I finally came to a conclusion that what separated IM from others at the time were primarily effects, but not necessarily the "musicality" of their work. It's as if they have taken the melodies, which weren't that different from what's been made before and applied some sort of filters and tweaks that were not that common and made it sound "cool". Perhaps this speaks to Elysium's melody vs production argument. It was packaged really well, much better than most, but when you look inside the box it didn't have that "wow" factor and in my opinion lost it's appeal and I quickly found it ...well... "cheesy".. Starting somewhere around Classical Mushroom time, they were releasing songs that had quite a bit of sudden changes in the story line. It was as if someone is telling you a story quietly, then all of a sudden starts yelling, then quiet, then some other tone of voice. I guess if you were to ask me how was IM different from others that the time I would probably think of these sudden changes done, overdone and beaten to death. Maybe someone can call that revolutionary. To be honest I find it a bit irritating, but now we're going into "taste" territory. IM is a band that has certain legacy in this scene, but I don't think their material can be called "classic" as say Koxbox/Psychopod stuff. Now, that's what I call revolutionary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhale Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (Insejn @ Jul 27 2009, 05:17 PM) * Back in 2000 it was pretty damn original. Get real! Yeah, so true. It was a big deal. This is sarcasm right? I mean I've heard goa-psy music with very classical parts all the way back in 1991, so I hope you guys aren't serious. The reason that most albums do not use this is because it's not as original as making up their own space alien sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormion Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 This is sarcasm right? I mean I've heard goa-psy music with very classical parts all the way back in 1991, so I hope you guys aren't serious. The reason that most albums do not use this is because it's not as original as making up their own space alien sounds. Hey trollguy! The reason that Classical Mushroom is revolutionary is not because they added classical parts in the music. Is how they fitted the whole classical concept into the psychedelic genre. They didn't just add a piano line over a psy bassline. Nor some violin notes along with the synths. Go listen to Dracul and Bust A Move and tell me if you have ever listened to something similar before. No? Then it's revolutionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapinho Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It's not a good quote. I am telling you this as someone who is a mathematician/logician (related to architecture), and likes dancing and music as well. (I believe I am more qualified to judge this quote than you, but if you feel differently, we can go more in depth about whether it is true or not.)Well, I am telling you the following as someone who is a philosopher, and if you consider yourself a 'logician', then you must see that I am right, but your constant use of logical fallacies does not strengthen your point. Referring to an argumentum ad verecundiam does not prove your point, and makes you look silly for not being able to recognize an (interesting) metaphor for what it is. Your being a mathematician (you are not an architect) does not have anything do with it. The only thing you say is you are more qualified to judge this quote, based on your supposed 'authority'. This is an obvious logical fallacy which I - being a philosopher - can judge way better than anybody out there. Yes, I was being ironic. Throughout this whole discussion, you spend most of your time claiming the people that don't agree with you are unable to understand you, because of your superior insights. For someone that wants to claim there are definite standards we can use to judge whether a certain type of music is revolutionary, you sure seem to feel that you are the only one that recognizes those... I think the whole discussion is interesting on a meta-level. Not just about Infected Mushroom, but how one defines music as revolutionary. I do think that some people would agree on some artists being revolutionary (however, is Elvis really the first one to start rock 'n roll? Don't think so? Was he revolutionary? What does it depend on?) but it seems that opinions about a lot of other artists, albums, styles, influences etc. go both ways. Interesting, don't you think? Maybe it does have something to do with taste? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supergroover Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I won't let you PUSSIES run away claiming everything is relative and personal. And calling your opponents names doesnt make you a very worthy contester for the ultimate "i am the best goalover" either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.