Search options (Page 1 of 48)

My resolution this year is to get rid of the strange pride and attachment I have to totally vapid and uninteresting things like monitor resolutions.

who's the relativist now?

I'm sorry, that does make a lot of assumptions about you. For some reason I thought that you responded to the post below yours.

A song could be worse than another on a subjective basis. Do you imagine that people judge music objectively? There are things that we can know objectively about pieces of music based on how we define the terminology, but these knowable qualities, like "how many notes are there", "what scale is it", "how many beats are there per bar" etc. are not the qualities we judge music by in terms of how much praise it deserves. I have no idea how acknowledging that is to succumb to sophistry, but I'm sure that there is a rational basis for that suggestion.

Good, we both agree on that. If you establish a definition of musical complexity, I'm sure that you can find songs that are more or less complex, but there exists many such definitions.

Even if you think that the point of expressing an opinion or reviewing music is to establish or maintain some sort of objective means to judge things, you still have to agree that these things fail horribly at that. People often express opinions because it's nice to have them acknowledged by your peers. As for reviews, in a good review the judgement is usually given some context in terms of the basis of that judgement. If there was an objective basis for judging music, why would reviews be more than a score? The score itself would be indicative of whether you will like it or not.

Technical expertise, complex songwriting and intelligent structure are neither objective qualities nor necessarily part of the definition of "good" or praiseworthy music. Let me explain where I come from. The way I see it, objectivity only exists in theoretical and and limited systems for which we define the rules in such a way that truth is inferable by means of the definition of the system. The prime example is of course something like mathematics. Math can be used to model things, but you can't really use it to prove anything outside its own system. You can create a mathematical model of a real world thing, but you can't know your model to be true or consistent. Whenever you observe something that is consistent with your model, you can only know it to be true for the instance that you observed. More importantly, there isn't much basis for the idea that we can observe reality objectively, so even in the instances we observe something, we can't know our observation to be true. From this point of view, the idea that music is somehow objective is ridiculous.

Unless you agree that the notion that they indicate some objective standard of beauty is another non-argument that doesn't support anything you've said, I think that you'll have to explain how they indicate that. I mean, is there any more to indicate that these are even universal to more than the small fraction of humans in your cultural vicinity that share your opinion? There are a lot of interesting theories on why some things seem beautiful to humans in general in fields like evolutionary biology.

There is a menu called DRAW that includes the function PEN. You should read the manual about saving and restoring pictures.

The TIA chip in the 2600 handles both sound and graphics. Changing its clock frequency would likely break video timing.

A more interesting mod would probably be to remove the filters from the audio output. Then you can really get to those deep bass frequencies.

Their relative pitch is way off (for western musical intervals) and is AFAIK based on clock divisions, so while you may find a perfectly tuned single tone, you will never get a consistent 12-tet scale with this method.

It says "Dillon!" just before a high five then after it it says "You son of a bitch!"