sunwolf

Quality post! :rolleyes: Try making the slightest bit of sense next time rather than just combining a couple of my phrases in a sentence and flooding this thread with utter crap.

This forum does not support downloading music illegally. /in before the Goa Head (This is a joke post in case you, the reader, don't get it. )

And nor does subjectivity exist. They are one and the same! Haven't you studied the writings of the Buddha or do you think you're exempt from this by listening to Goa Trance? PS - Sorry for quadruple post.

So basically you're saying that you have no original opinions? That you're a follower and conformist? Well these people usually are lazy, but I personally have no problem spending 2 whole minutes to type up a post which will hopefully lead to higher enlightenment of others who have an open mind.

It is better to hate than to feel nothing at all. :clapping: And no, I don't hate psytrance, but neither does me posting negatively towards certain people or ideas suggest that I do.

This analogy is off though. Here: Joe tried making his own muffins and tweaked his recipe for a few months. Joe then baked some muffins and compared them to those from warehouses A, B, and C. Joe was thinking about not releasing his muffins because he thought they were only "mildly good", 2/5. However Fred, another muffin critic, tasted Joe's muffins and really loved them. Fred rated them as 4/5 and convinced Joe to commence mass production. Joe agreed because, after all, there's no reason he should have to produce the greatest muffins on the planet before he released them. Joe decided that his muffins were only a 2/5 compared with the others because he applied an "objective" or consistent rating system to them, the one that he always used to rate muffins with before he started making them himself. Should he rate his muffins on muffinratings.com as 2/5 or 5/5? The latter may help his sales. Should he apply his subjective muffin rating system "objectively", or should he be biased towards certain muffins (ie. his own) and rate them via different standards (ie. who made them, rather than what they taste like)? My use of the term "objective" is perfectly valid here and I'm in no way suggesting there's an absolute muffin rating system of the universe, merely that there is an absolute muffin rating system used by Joe. I hope you can understand this now that we've reduced the scenario to language comprehensible by an eight year old.

Learn the subtleties of english language then maybe you won't take my posts out of context.

Of course objectivity doesn't exist. Did you not see the quotation marks around it? What I meant in that case by "objectivity" is basically consistency.

Haha I received my order from this guy from awhile ago... Apparently to him Mint/Mint and "brain new cd still sealed" = unsealed with multiple scratches on the CD.

Everyone has their own standard for music just as they have their own standard for washing machines. Only for washing machines a group of people get together and create international standards that get enforced by law whereas our music standards remain subjective and personal. What a load of shit. A much better example: The artist could think someone else's music is more emotional than his and try to add some more emotion to his. This doesn't involve copying any specific element of the other guy's music, but he is comparing his own to the other guy's via his own standards (emotions). He could be comparing for creativity or complexity or whatever else he values in music. I've never advocated anything more than personal ratings. Only consistency amongst your personal ratings if you want to be taken seriously. Good for you, rebel. I happen to think ratings are quite useful sometimes. If I share similar personal rating system on music as person X and they rate music highly I'm probably going to want to check it out. If some unknown person rates something 1/5 or 5/5 that means very little to me.

You only listen to the best releases in general I imagine?

If this is true then they shouldn't rate it IMO (or they will look bad for rating it). However I have seen people rate their own releases fairly before, so it is not always true that someone must rate everything 5/5 just because they released it. It is possible to be "objective" about it and compare your releases with others' and rate them according to the same standards you would when comparing two releases by others.

What an ironic post.

I've shown you the inconsistencies in his opinion. I have no intention of trying to make you adopt you my superior opinion. I don't see any reason why they would only release 5/5 material. Perhaps you could present an argument?

They still represent subjective values on a subjective criteria. Right... I quote something by you and your response is basically "no, you said that"? You have indeed stated how you "feel". You also tried to back this up but I pointed out how it was irrational. Can you back it up properly or just reassert how you feel? Ad hominems have no place here.

Maybe, but this is irrelevant to my point. If I don't like Suntrip I should rate them 1/5 by the aforequoted logic from Basilisk.

Asia 2001 - Ra

It is still at the expense of others just to a lesser extent. Rather than yours looking 5/5 and theirs 1/5, yours is 5/5 and theirs, say, 3/5. In reality both may be 3/5 for an easy example. If I were a competing label I wouldn't like Suntrip's releases and I wouldn't support them... so by this logic I should rate them all 1/5. Enthusiastic enough to want to rate it fairly, or to try and portray it as a higher rating than you likely think it actually deserves? In other words: enthusiastic to make money or enthusiastic about producing music. This is a completely different topic.

This rationale is quite retarded. By rating your stuff up and everyone else's fairly you're still doing it "just to make your stuff look better".

He sends this shit over and over, I have said no thanks & ignored many. Plus the way he words this, he sounds like a retard trying to flatter me. "if you are real collector show me.... i can take care good of you[r money]." ... [here is all my overpriced shit that's on your wantlist] ... "if you buy all shipping will be free and registrated ....plus i can add some free magazines/nice stickers/free 3 cd's ...." (If I buy all at a huge loss he'll send me some stickers... YAY!) ... "Big respect"

Anoebis makes it clear that 3/5 is good and 4/5 is great to him. It's not that he has to rate it 5/5 or it's shit (some people rate this way mind you!). Quoted for stupidity & paranoia (are you a noob?). I agree that rating everything 5/5 that clearly isn't 5/5 makes you look like an dumbass out to inflate your ratings. I've seen people rate their own things properly before though. In this case I'm slightly disappointed as Anoebis' ratings for everything other than his own releases are usually good.

Wait... so he's just listing what was released in what year? Most people here probably know all this and more. It may be useful to someone who doesn't know anything about goa trance though.

I got sick of his stupid solicitations, wonder if he'll keep sending them or not.

I rated this 4/5. Nice acidic melodies. The Japan EP with the original Zoa and the Zoa remix is 5/5 IMO. Zoa 1996 is still good but doesn't compare.

I love the track Gummi. Yes, it's somewhat minimal, but so what -- this automatically means it's crap?! I'm sure I've heard tracks with less layers before, these ones are just well concealed! Unfortunately I've never heard the original of Kante so I can't comment.