not logged in
| re: The Anatomy Of Research, Or, Why Not Just Doodle? | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 10:30 am UTC 05/25/07 |
| In reply to: | re: The Anatomy Of Research, Or, Why Not Just Doodle? - GTKarber 09:38 am UTC 05/25/07 |
This is the best text I've seen from you so far. It is so improved in attitude, if not resolve, than the others, that I would like to respond. But, I can't guarantee that it will be all you desire in one gulp. The stance I would like to attempt is that this is a discussion board, rather than a "declare" "accept" or "reject" board. What I mean by that, is that it would be fantastic if you would participate in the stream of logic with me, rather than judge my logic as a spectator. If I could proceed with such a hypothesis, then I ask you to read what I carefully compose for you. You seem like you are intelligent enough. > Because it is. I believe we could assume that you believe strongly that it is Rory Dodd who is singing Bad For Good. It has already been discussed at length on the board with some sources to refer to, and I hope you have read those posts. It has been determined that Bad For Good is sung by Jim. But, if you believe otherwise, let's see your logic as to why. It sounds like him. I spent a good deal of time trying to find out what Rory Dodd sounds like, and I have just described above one plan for developing a clear determination of the sound of his voice. I went through sources on the internet in which no isolated sample of his voice is available on the internet as such. So, if you know what Rory Dodd sounds like, and have a recording of his singing, then please share it. I'd happily listen to it. However, being as it is Jim's voice which is most prominent, you may be comparing Jim's voice to Jim's voice and calling it Rory's. >The album credits him > (though later ones do not, I admit). There were some errors. Errors happen. One of the most important things one must do as a logistician is to develop an appreciation for the consistencies and inconsistencies between the published fact and the perceived fact. Published facts are those of course that we read. Perceived facts are those that we receive information through by our senses, the sound, the sight, and for those who feel such things, even the vibe. Published facts which do not match perceived facts are published incorrectly. Published facts which do match perceived facts are published correctly. So, in this case, we need to be certain about what we hear and what we call what we hear, in order to say that the published fact is correct or incorrect. Just laying down the rudiments. ? I would quote Occam's > Razor and the Principle of Parsimony, but I doubt that > logic works on someone Well, I studied Logic as a Philosophy course in college, in addition to the regular philosophy course which preceded it. I also studied sociology courses, anthropology, political science, psychology, journalism, history, and speech. Logic works quite well with me, and I can think quite logically. It is not the logic you would find problems with at this point in time, because you have not studied my logic, but it is the conclusions which I have drawn through its use. My conclusions don't make sense to you. I'd like to see about how to make my logic make more sense to you. And I think I shall begin with the next sentence that you write. >who believes the stylistically > opposed Rocky Horror and Bat Out of Hell share a common > author. Stylistically opposed.......I like the phrase, and wonder where you came up with it to apply in this case. Let's look at the first part of the scenario. If you are the same GTKarber who has the blogs up here and there, which says that GTKarber is a sophomore in college, then I would like to ask you to confirm that if you would, and preceding that I would preliminarily say that you were born after these works came out as fresh new experiences, so there were alot of discussions and observations which were easy to make at the time which you don't have the benefit of, being born ten years after the latter of these projects. I was your age at that time. On May 21 (give or take a day) in 1976 I sat in the Waverly Theatre and saw Rocky Horror Picture Show for the first time. In November of 1977 I bought the album that came out, Bat Out Of Hell. There was no difference in the style I perceived between them at the time. I made the assumption that the author was the same without any other sensory or logical input. Over time, I didn't think of that. Now, I'm thinking of that again. And, I see that the perceptions of Rocky Horror and Bat Out Of Hell are much different, not mine, but the cultural perceptions. I think that what you are referring to as stylistically opposed, is that cultural difference in perceptions. If that is so, then I should be able to show you similarities in style between Rocky Horror and Booh. I shall suppose that you didn't read my website. Well, I'll read your suggestions if you'll read mine, but don't worry, you don't have to go anywhere yet. I wonder if you could figure out in your mind how to separate the culture from the style of Rocky Horror. Cultural is what the audience has created; Style is what the author created. If you can do that, we can get to a point where I could show you similarities in style. > > This particular blindness Entertain for the moment the possibility that it is you who are the one who has some difficulty seeing some things. And I shall endeavor to show you, hence your difficulty could be eased. >would partially explain how it > possible for one to think--no, even believe--that "Surf's > Up" and Bad For Good's "Out of The Frying Pan (And Into > the Fire)" are performed by the same artist. Indeed they sound so different. What is different is the octave of the vocalization. Do you sing? I've written posts here in the past which deal with the bands of the larynx and the tonal quality in different octaves on the same singer's voice. You've also heard "Wonderful Toys" and "Graveyard Shift". They are by the same artist also. And, the same artist as "Surf's Up" and "Out of the Frying Pan (And Into The Fire)" The voice as an instrument is more changeable than a piano or a guitar. One always knows a guitar when one hears one. One knows piano when one hears one. Octaves don't change the identifiability. But in vocals from the human voice, it very well can. Jim's voice is highly honed, highly trained, and highly versatile. He sings all of these four songs mentioned in this paragraph. > what do you mean by Rory's > "alleged but untrue prominence" in Total Eclipse? It has been erroneously accepted by some untrue information, that Rory Dodd sang "Turn Around" on the song. But it is Jim. For this there is abundant visual evidence, letting aside the fact that he has told me alot. See, I could say, and leave it to, he told me, but you have trouble believing that. Because you have trouble believing that, I am willing to take that extra step and go the full route of logical examination with you. Don't call it a delusion. Call it a quest. > > Thank you in advance for your undoubtably lucid and > characteristically concise response. I hope that I have helped bring along a dialogue. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: The Anatomy Of Research, Or, Why Not Just Doodle? - Markus 10:43 am UTC 05/25/07 |
| Next: | re: The Anatomy Of Research, Or, Why Not Just Doodle? - pidunk 09:18 am UTC 06/01/07 |
| Thread: |
|