Album Rating: 4.5

@vastwilderness: To suggest my theory can be "be disproven by history and anthropology" is simply sophistic, considering your so-called anthropological argument is founded upon a fictional experiment which could never and can never take place, and of which the results are thus also forever unknown. All of the musical examples you've selected were created long after this ontological, state required for your 'fake' experiment, could be sought out. Thus it seems erroneous to presume that the appreciation for them is some adoptation, which must have taken place within an environment in which these forms of musical expression were totally non-existent. It is therefore tenable to infer that, for this reason and others I have offered in previous pages, our appreciation for music is socially conditioned, historically contingent and moreover a deeply empheral thing, subject to continuous change and reconditioning.

Whether a cultural element such as harmony or melody is reproduced, I think is ultimately a question of power, and whether the concentration of that power favours or facilitates in any way, the propagation of these elements; if they serve a function to power, to the prevailing culture and that culture or at least part of it is reproduced, such elements will persist. I'm not sure it has anything to do with life-affirming qualities found in these concepts. Cultures cross-polinate, but they also come into conflict with each other. To reduce both the percievable harmony or disharmony between cultural groups to genetic predispostions (or the lack thereof) seems narrow-minded to me. Again, your last points don't seem to have any discernable point to them. You seem to reduce everything down to some Jorden-Petersonesque dichtomoy between order and chaos, you claim human beings 'are all the same', but offer no viable argument as to why they are, apart from meaningless hypotheticals. Your comments seem to me like idealistic musings grounded more so in Petersonian ideology than in any anthropologically or historically defensible narrative. You postulate a universality which seems to only exist within this twisted ideological narrative you've constructed and nowhere else. (2)

Album Rating: 4.0

So yeah cool album right

Album Rating: 4.7 | Sound Off

Is this even a music review site anymore?

"close to a hundred percent of these disparate cultures chose melody and harmony over the opposite"
yeah, you're doing that thing again. melody and harmony are complex things and can be configured in drastically different ways. their being a constant is news to no-one. the fact that you devote none of your very many words considering the far more important differences between national instruments (+their respective timbres) or the rhythms associated with traditional styles. these are far more interesting and important for this conversation
"adopted it as part of their DNA or collective unconscious"
please stop using language like this it does not make you look smart. this is like reading a trantalocked alt who pretended to go to college smh

You're all frens and I appreciate you :3

OH LOL is it tranta??????

love u Jac

Our appreciation of harmony can come from any organic material in nature and our ears are attuned to certain vibrations (in all cultures, in all eras). You can hit a log, and if it's the right log, it will be built to harmonically resonant in a harmoniously pleasing way that affects everyone on a biological gut level removed from culture.

Album Rating: 4.5

why did that guy get banned, what did he do that was legitimately ban-worthy

Album Rating: 4.0

oh lol that fucker got wiped.





Never thought id ever see the Jordan Peterson of musical opinions. Thank you Ulcerate thread for blessing us with such an abomination.

that was molyneux on a sputnik account for sure

woah shit
no idea tbh + i didn't actually report so idk who did

thank you nocte for screenshotting this for posterity

Album Rating: 4.5

@vastwilderness: Oh I can play that card too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism. Citing a wikipedia page isn't a valid argument however.

Again, you use the term 'if' implying some hypothetical universality which you cannot prove, without stating it might exist, without then providing a concrete argument. Again, the ontological reality within which your experiment must be conducted doesn't exist, so there is no "data", there is however a sophistic appeal to some fictional iteration of reality in which some postulated universality might exist, if the results of some non-existent experiment were to suit your ideological narrative. None of this however applicable, because there is not scientific bases for your claims of universality. Ultimately whether we, as a society, consider something to be 'the best' or 'accurate', is entirely dependent upon culturally constructed norms of appreciation, not in any way extrinsic to manufactured social reality and therefore derived from interpretations shaped by that very, socially constructed reality. In fact, whether something is percieved as 'similar' or different, is entirely relative to the parameters employed by the observer, the one who comes to formulate any discordancy or concordancy. Hey, be it Carl Jung, or any other pseudo-scientific character, it all ultimately depends on the subjective, culturally conditioned, historically contingent perspective of the observer; what is order to some is chaos to others and vice versa. Our perspectives do not exist inside some pure reality extricated from culture, history, ideology etc. Any similarity we thus perceive is ultimately relative to our own externally conditioned perspectives (1).

Album Rating: 4.5

@vastwilderness: I'm not claiming that sexual anatomies are 'non-biological', yet they are certainly non-binary and their evaluation occurs within a socially conditioned context by socially conditioned subjects. Beauty standards undoubtedly play a huge role in determining sexual attraction and any behavouir is ultimately limited by social context: I might be predisposed to have sex, but how I do so, when I do so, with whom I do so, is all limited and, at least partially determined by social context. How a society deals with genetic predispositions, which ones it allows, which ones it supresses is not a matter of biology, but does determine their manifestations. Stop using the description 'postmodern nonsense' btw, it's bloody sophistic and doesn't in any way constitute an argument.

As for your third claim: citations needed firstly. Secondly, cultural cross-polination is determined anthropologically, not biologically; cultural characteristics must be obseved within cultural contexts and do not exist extrinsic to them. Again, whether something is considered the same across cultures, depends on the subjective perspective of the observer, and is thus ultimately tied to the cultural conditions which shape their perspective, a perspective not universal in any way, which provides conclusions equally relative, local, non-transcendental. Your claims are bold, but ultimately cannot reach beyond narrow-minded notions of arbitrary binaries; human beings might be biologically similar, but culturally they cannot be so easily equated and distilled, as your claims seem to suggest. (2)

my guy stop

"why did that guy get banned, what did he do that was legitimately ban-worthy"

could have been some user who isnt allowed to come on here anymore maybe

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

lmao

Album Rating: 4.0

Bye

Album Rating: 4.5

Oh shit, am I now reacting to a non-existent entity? My bad for the commotion everyone. Quanrantaine is damn boring and I needed something to do. Also, I'm a sucker for philosophical debate and I couldn't resist the bait, even if my interlocuter turned into a Jordan Peterson imitator at the end there.