... Eh? Ad hominem? Do you know what that even means?

Do you realize that you've opened with ad hominem remarks? . . . Perhaps I should claim that you don't know the definitions of, let's say, half of the vocabulary that you've used, which not only implies that you're stupid (in the least, uneducated), but is totally beside the point and further ensures that we get nowhere.

Do you realize that you've opened with ad hominem remarks? . . . Perhaps I should claim that you don't know the definitions of, let's say, half of the vocabulary that you've used, which not only implies that you're stupid (in the least, uneducated), but is totally beside the point and further ensures that we get nowhere.

But you did it anyways, eh? ;P

STOP. You're just insulting each other without any facade of legitimate argument. Just calm down.

But you did it anyways, eh? ;P

If "it" refers to claiming the misuse of half of your working vocabulary, then I was speaking hypothetically; meaning that I didn't do "it" anyway. Otherwise, clarify. (This is becoming marvelously petty!)

I think stopping is a good idea at this point. I don't enjoy the idea of attacking anyone if I'm actually trying to discuss something anyways. So, first off, yes I actually shot myself in the foot with the wikipedia article about renaissance, and I concede the point that you are indeed right about the opinion that it was backwards for science. These are probably people who know more about it than I do, so I'm not going to argue (until I have enough information to actually contest it or agree with it entirely.) Though, it's still arguable that because of the scientific revolution, which wikipedia states can be traced to the 16th and 17th century, it overlaps with late-renaissance. But, sure, I'm not sure if I'm talking about the philosophy or the actual time periods. If it's just the time periods, then we would both be wrong and right, since there's no real concrete date for when the scientific revolution started. Or an unified opinion on it altogether apparently.

So, well, I guess I learned something new from all this!

Second, I really don't have anything else to add to my argument about talent or such. So, disagreement there is inevitable.

EDIT: Nevermind. Seems this fire finally burned itself out.

Well, Ill trow some petrol on the fire then! Baroque/Classical is the only thing worth called music, the rest of it is just rubbish!

I draw a line at Mozarts death!

HAHA :D did that get you fired up again?

Well, Ill trow some petrol on the fire then! Baroque/Classical is the only thing worth called music, the rest of it is just rubbish!

I draw a line at Mozarts death!

HAHA :D did that get you fired up again?

omg yes powerlevel is ovar 9000! prepare urself.

Im reeeeeeaaddyyy, give me you best shoot! ;D

ur a meanieface :(

I see music like this, a light and a dark side of the music. The light side is good, and the dark evil and destructive.

Baroque and classical is the light side of the music.

The rest is the dark side of the music.

Too bad, many of you have fell to the dark side, but i belive in redemption, you can all be saved.

Anyone agree?

come on Lord Vader ( SSC ) return to the light, you have been there before!

come on Lord Vader ( SSC ) return to the light, you have been there before!

you implyin' I'm emo? :( :( :(

This seems to be the most popular theard i have created, with my music had the same views as this one, and as many reply's, hehe

you implyin' I'm emo? :( :( :(

Actually, he's implying that you have the highest midichlorian count he's ever seen.

I see music like this, a light and a dark side of the music. The light side is good, and the dark evil and destructive.

Baroque and classical is the light side of the music.

The rest is the dark side of the music.

Too bad, many of you have fell to the dark side, but i belive in redemption, you can all be saved.

Anyone agree?

Romantic music is the dark side?

To hell with you. And by that, I mean that you should listen to some of Chopin's hellish nocturnes.

Haha i play them on the piano :) i played the e minor nocturne today :)

I had a pretty high MIDI-chlorion count too. . . . until I got Garittan Personal Orchestra.

OMG LOLZ!!!!11!!!1

I need me some GPO.

Welcome to....music religion:

I see music like this, a light and a dark side of the music. The light side is good, and the dark evil and destructive.

Baroque and classical is the light side of the music.

The rest is the dark side of the music.

Too bad, many of you have fell to the dark side, but i belive in redemption, you can all be saved.

Anyone agree?

Haha, kind of ?

Music after 1750's one long, upsetting downhill slide.

Cool. So, the only period of high quality music lasts for 150 years tops. That's good to know. How come you disregard music of thousands of years before that and music of hundreds of years after that with just a simple comment?

Care to explain why music after the 1750's is getting worse and worse?

Stating that music composed after date 'x' is worse than music before date 'x' does not imply that 'the only period of high quality music lasts for 150 years'. That's simply not what I said.

I just think that the music of the High Baroque period represents the pinnacle of compositional achievement in the same way that I think Renaissance portraiture and sculpture represents (as of yet) the apex of representative art.

Because writing the same thing over and over again is definitely badass.

This isn't very recent anymore, but I've been gone for a few days and just had to comment on this:

The differing views frequently cited (like Gardener's) suggest that it requires something beyond the human brain to create "art" as if it's divined from God himself. These are superstitions, and they're frankly ridiculous. I have similar opinions of people who use specious logic to denounce the veracity of psychometric tests and, in doing so, essentially spit on a century of scientific labor.

You're wrong. I'm in no way suggesting that there's something beyond the human brain we use to create art (well, our hands, pen and paper, and all this stuff aside ;)). I do not believe in any god, ”supernatural" powers and tarot cards. I usually am quite a "scientific" person (even though many people erraneously confuse "science" with "natural science", which I try to avoid.)

I have never said that our creativity comes from little fairies or planetary constellations, I just disagreed with reducing the human mind to "I.Q.". I.Q. tests may be very useful to test certain abilities, but do you honestly believe such a test can effectively summarize a brain's full capabilities in every area? There's been a lot more of "scientific labour" in the last century than just I.Q. tests, concerning our brain, mind, and consciousness, from psychology over neurology to philosophical concepts. By suggesting you can reduce every human capability to merely their I.Q. you are the one who is spitting on centuries of science, by ignoring every model that works along other lines.

In fact, worshiping I.Q. tests as the ultimate explanation of everything humans have ever been capable of sounds much closer to "religious superstition" than the assumption that there are many factors, most of which we don't fully understand, which influence our thinking and actions.

But it's all irrelevant unless you can show me an actual study that shows a strong, direct relationship between I.Q. and "artistic output". (Which would be impossible to do anyways, as you can't measure the "quality" of artistic output statistically.) But you're probably also one of the people who think of Einstein as a brilliant musician.

Sorry if I'm overreacting, but the view that everything that doesn't conform with your view must be a superstition just annoyed me.