Originally Posted by Despare (Post 741367)

Your two cents aren't needed here, save it and buy some balls.

:p

Originally Posted by Leprucky Cougar (Post 741384)

He was using the dictionary to discredit your belief on the terminology of music and how it is implied and interpreted; merely used to eliminate your claim. That was his weapon of choice. Because you have tended to go on and on about how significant diction and specifically the interpretation of diction. However, his mere point was to reiterate to you that music even when one ponders with words, the more and more life goes on--there will never be any universial definition to define music as a factual entity through one specific and concise mannerism. Because it's impossible because of the many evolutions it is and will take. Just because new genres of music emerge, and it may not be the same way it was 50 yrs ago--or even how you were, it doesn't mean it isn't what it intended to be --which is music. No matter the genre, no matter the type--no matter the form--no matter the style; music is music. And Despare and urge I'm with you on this one.

Originally Posted by neverending (Post 741391)

Have you read ANY of my posts? I never once mentioned diction or interpretation of diction. Perhaps you have me mixed up with some crazy dialogue inside your head.

And I agree with you- what's music is music. And what isn't, isn't.

Originally Posted by Leprucky Cougar (Post 741394)

Yes I read your posts. You and Despare weren't arguing and comparing each other's definitions? And evaluating and interpreting them?

Originally Posted by Festered (Post 741404)

It's the friction created by a di......nevermind.

Originally Posted by neverending (Post 741400)

Do you know what the word diction means?

Originally Posted by Leprucky Cougar (Post 741406)

Yes I do. But instead of going off on this small tangent of a dispute with me, I want to know the response to the counterclaims made by urge and Despare.