Who call a song a "beat"

[1-2-Many]

I didn't say you were elitist But i will say you're a douchebag

Now that's Funny! really I laughed hard! Since it mostly reveals your emotional/developmental immaturity. How old are you 14, 15? That's what I'd guess from that retort.


Got any more imbecilic sophomoric insults to throw?

[slang] Lay it on me, big daddy! [/slang]



.

[1-2-Many]

And I generally don't do tricks. I prefer straight up debate, and I prefer to stand on the weight of my argument.

Sorry, but the facts of your posts in this thread disagree, and demonstrate the opposite

Fact:You have yet to address one of my speaking points, and have only resorted to calling my ideas elitist which, as said earlier, labels me as one by association, thereby commiting the logical fallacy of ad-hominem.

If you did prefer "straight up debate" we'd be talking about the speaking points, rather than slurring my opinion with labels.

Here's one -

Slang is the degradation of language into esoteric meanings. By degradation it is meant that the ideas or concepts the word is meant to relay no longer has a direct representation, and must be re-encoded by the general populace to be understood. During which time it maintains its esoterity, and hence appeal as an exclusive code-speak. Once the word gains mass decoding status by the general populace it is oft abandonded by the subculture for another code-speak term, hence the empheral nature of slang.

- converse



.

[jens]

I would like to ask a genuine question (while this thread still isn't locked ):

I sometimes call my tunes tunes... - I thought that's an adequate expression for instrumental-tracks (which obviously aren't really 'songs') - why is 'tunes' considered wrong by some of you?

When you're answering please keep in mind that english isn't my native language and I am therefor somewhat naive.

What's wrong about tunes?

[jones-y]

Degradation is a negative connotation for a process (the evolution of language) which cannot be negative in nature.

I didn't respond to that earlier? Or did you just casually disregard my response?

You have many opinions. I am labelling one of them as eletist. I am not labelling all of them. What's so hard to understand about that? If you wish to continue in your fallacious reasoning, by insinuating that I am labelling you, the person who holds this opinion, as eletist, then carry on. I have explained myself fully.

[jones-y]

What's wrong about tunes?

the same thing that is "wrong" with beats. It is a convention used to communicate a particular idea.

[Sepheritoh]

I would like to ask a genuine question (while this thread still isn't locked ):

I sometimes call my tunes tunes... - I thought that's an adequate expression for instrumental-tracks (which obviously aren't really 'songs') - why is 'tunes' considered wrong by some of you?

When you're answering please keep in mind that english isn't my native language and I am therefor somewhat naive.

What's wrong about tunes?

Technically a tune is:

tune [ toon ]


noun (plural tunes)

1. simple melody: a series of musical notes that make a simple melody

(encarta)

Although the word tune has been used for a long time (at least in the 80's when I was around) to describe a song it does not have such hidden emotions as some other words being used, but it still implicates a certain amount of simplicity. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[jens]

Oh, and while we're speaking about the usage of language:

shouldn't it be 'who calls a song a "beat"' as 'who' refers to a single third person?

Seperitoh, if I am not mistaken English is your native language and you're an academic so your English grammar is surely by far superior to mine so please excuse me asking this question - I am not questioning your educational level but am merely confused.

[jones-y]

I think he meant to say 'why' instead of 'who'

Which makes it a simple typographical error, as opposed to one of syntax.

[Sepheritoh]

Jens, yes and no.

English is not my native language, but I do speak it in business every day, so I am supposed to be able to use better grammer I admit.

The word "call" is used as in "giving a name for", not as in "invite over". Still, you are right in that this use of the word is not really royal english like Kriminal would prefer it to be spoken.

[Sepheritoh]

I think he meant to say 'why' instead of 'who'

Which makes it a simple typographical error, as opposed to one of syntax.

It would make sense that way yes.

[Sepheritoh]

While I'm quoting:

call [ kawl ]


verb (past called, past participle called, present participle call·ing, 3rd person present singular calls)

1. transitive and intransitive verb say loudly: to say something in a loud voice
“Supper’s ready,” he called from the kitchen.


2. transitive verb describe as something: to describe or think of somebody or something in a particular way
I’d call him a fool.


(encarta again)

[jones-y]

I would like to ask a genuine question (while this thread still isn't locked ):

I sometimes call my tunes tunes... - I thought that's an adequate expression for instrumental-tracks (which obviously aren't really 'songs') - why is 'tunes' considered wrong by some of you?

When you're answering please keep in mind that english isn't my native language and I am therefor somewhat naive.

What's wrong about tunes?

Technically a tune is:

tune [ toon ]


noun (plural tunes)

1. simple melody: a series of musical notes that make a simple melody

(encarta)

Although the word tune has been used for a long time (at least in the 80's when I was around) to describe a song it does not have such hidden emotions as some other words being used, but it still implicates a certain amount of simplicity. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

The American Heritage Dictionary gives its origin as Middle English.

Which implies two things.

1. there was a time that this word either didn't exist or had a different, and possibly unrelated, meaning, and

2. evolution of the english language is how that word came to have that accepted meaning.

I fail to see the difference between tune and beat, except that one is a much more recent addition.

[Sepheritoh]

I fail to see the difference between tune and beat, except that one is a much more recent addition

Thanks

I a clumsy way I think I expressed agreement with that.

[jens]

I would like to ask a genuine question (while this thread still isn't locked ):

I sometimes call my tunes tunes... - I thought that's an adequate expression for instrumental-tracks (which obviously aren't really 'songs') - why is 'tunes' considered wrong by some of you?

When you're answering please keep in mind that english isn't my native language and I am therefor somewhat naive.

What's wrong about tunes?

Technically a tune is:

tune [ toon ]


noun (plural tunes)

1. simple melody: a series of musical notes that make a simple melody

(encarta)

Although the word tune has been used for a long time (at least in the 80's when I was around) to describe a song it does not have such hidden emotions as some other words being used, but it still implicates a certain amount of simplicity. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

o.k. - I see -

Now that you gave me a proper definition of 'tune' I feel much more comfortable with continuing to use it - personally I feel very glad if people are able to recognise my music as that what I actually try to achieve: simple melodies

- the thing is that I don't like complex melodies as complexity is imo merely a way of hiding the absence of any valuable content.

or, to put it with Einstein's words: 'things should be as simple as possible but not simpler'

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

[jones-y]

I fail to see the difference between tune and beat, except that one is a much more recent addition

Thanks

I a clumsy way I think I expressed agreement with that.

Glad to help!

Now if I can only convince 1-2 that I'm not ad-hominem-ing him...